Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics

  • 제35권3호
  • /
  • Pages.188-197
  • /
  • 2010
  • /
  • 2234-7658(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2234-7666(eISSN)
대한치과보존학회 (The Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

수종의 섬유 강화 레진 포스트의 방사선 불투과도와 식별도 평가

EVALUATION OF RADIOPACITY AND DISCRIMINABILITY OF VARIOUS FIBER REINFORCED COMPOSITE POSTS

  • 이은혜 (강릉원주대학교 치과대학 치과보존학교실) ;
  • 최항문 (강릉원주대학교 치과대학 구강악안면방사선학교실) ;
  • 박세희 (강릉원주대학교 치과대학 치과보존학교실) ;
  • 김진우 (강릉원주대학교 치과대학 치과보존학교실) ;
  • 조경모 (강릉원주대학교 치과대학 치과보존학교실)
  • Lee, Eun-Hye (Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Gangneung-Wonju National University) ;
  • Choi, Hang-Moon (Department of Oral and maxillofacial radiology, College of Dentistry, Gangneung-Wonju National University) ;
  • Park, Se-Hee (Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Gangneung-Wonju National University) ;
  • Kim, Jin-Woo (Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Gangneung-Wonju National University) ;
  • Cho, Kyung-Mo (Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Gangneung-Wonju National University)
  • 투고 : 2010.04.19
  • 심사 : 2010.04.27
  • 발행 : 2010.05.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

본 연구의 목적은 수종의 섬유 강화 레진 포스트의 방사선 불투과도와 식별도를 비교하고자 하는 것이다. 이번 실험을 위해 1) FRC Postec Plus (Ivoclar Vivadent AG, Schaan, Liechtenstein) 2) Snowlight (Carbotech, Lewis center, OH, USA) 3) Dentin Post (Komet Brasseler, Lamgo, Germany) 4) Rely-X Fiber Post (3M ESPE, St.paul, MN, USA) 5) D.T.-Light Post (BISCO, Schaumburg, IL,USA ) 6) Luxapost (DMG, Hamburg, Germany) 등 6종의 섬유 강화 레진 포스트를 사용하였다. 각 포스트를 참고 기준으로 사용한 1 mm, 2 mm 간격의 알루미늄 step-wedge와 함께 디지털센서를 사용하여 방사선 촬영하였다. 방사선 불투과도는 각 포스트의 다섯 지점에서 $10{\times}10$ 화소의 평균 회색조 값으로 계산하였고 동일 두께의 알루미늄 당량으로 비교하였다. 치아 시편으로 비슷한 방사선 불투과도를 보이는 상악 전치 6개에 포스트를 식립 후 건조 하악골의 설측에 위치시켜 방사선 사진을 촬영하였다. 포스트만을 촬영한 사진과 치아 시편의 방사선 사진들을 구강악안면방사선과 전공자 3명, 치과보존과 전공자 3명, 일반 치과 의사 3명에게 보여주고 설문지를 작성하도록 요청하였다. 설문지는 포스트와 포스트가 식립된 치아 시편 사진에서 방사선 불투과도가 가장 높은 포스트와 낮은 포스트를 고르는 문항, 치근단과 치관부 끝에서 인접 상아질과 가장 식별이 잘되는 포스트를 고르는 문항을 포함하였다. 실험의 결과는 다음과 같았다. 1. 각 FRC-Post는 다양한 방사선 불투과도를 보였다. 2. 가장 높은 방사선 불투과도와 가장 낮은 방사선 불투과도를 가지는 포스트를 고르는 질문에서 포스트만 나열한 경우 실험군 모두 100%의 정답률을 보였으나 포스트를 치아에 넣고 치조골을 중첩시킨 경우 정답률의 변화를 보였다. 3. 포스트 주변 상아질과 구분되는 정도를 묻는 질문에 대해 시편의 조합 순서를 바꾸자 일관된 식별 결과를 보이지 않았다. 이에 본 연구에 사용한 포스트는 다양한 방사선 불투과도를 보이나 식별 능력에 영향을 미칠 정도의 방사선 불투과도 차이를 보이지 않는 것으로 사료된다.

The purpose of this study was to compare radiopacity and radiographic discriminability of various FRC-Posts. Six FRC-Posts were investigated ; 1) FRC Postec Plus (Ivoclar Vivadent AG, Schaan, Liechtenstein), 2) Snowlight (Carbotech, Lewis center, OH, USA), 3) Dentin Post (Komet Brasseler, Lamgo, Germany), 4) Rely-X Fiber Post (3M ESPE, St.paul, MN, USA), 5) D.T.-Light Post (BISCO, Schaumburg, IL,USA), 6) Luxapost (DMG, Hamburg, Germany) The radiographs of each post with a reference 1 mm / 2 mm aluminum step-wedge was taken using digital sensor. The optical density were calculated by gray value of $10{\times}10$ pixel and compared in mm Al equivalent at five points. Six maxillary incisors of similar radiopacity were used. Radiographs of posts in Mx. incisors of lingual side of dry mandible were taken. We showed radiographs and asked the questionnaire to 3 radiologists, 3 endodontists, 3 general practitioners. The questionnaire was comprised of choices of the highest, lowest radiopaque individual post and the choices of best discriminable post at apical, coronal area. The following results were obtained. 1. Each post system showed various radiopacity. 2. There was change of discriminability between each post and simulated specimens regardless of examiner. Although each post showed various radiopacity, the difference of radiopacity did not affect on discriminability.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Eliasson & Haasken. Radiopacity of impression materials. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 47(5):485-491, 1979. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-4220(79)90136-1
  2. International Standards Organization. ISO 4049. Dentistry-polymer-based filling, restorative and luting materials, 3rd Ed. 2000.
  3. O’Rourke B, Walls AWG, Wassell RW. Radiographic detection overhangs formed by resin composite luting agents. J Dent 23(6):353-357, 1995. https://doi.org/10.1016/0300-5712(94)00009-5
  4. Soares CJ, Mistsui FHO, Neto FH, Marchi GMM, Martins LRM. Radiodensity evaluation of seven root post systems. Am J Dent 18(1):57-60, 2005.
  5. Brian J, Rasimick BS, Steven G, Allan SD, Barry LM. Measuring the radiopacity of luting cements, dowels, and core build-up materials with a digital radiography system using a CCD sensor. J Prosthodont 16(5):357-364, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.2007.00209.x
  6. Ibrahim H, El-Mowafy O, Brown JW. Radiopacity of nonmetallic root canal posts. Int J Prosthodont 19(1):101-102, 2006.
  7. Finger WJ, Ahlstrand WM, Fritz UB. Radiopacity of fiber-reinforced resin posts. Am J Dent 15(2):81-84, 2002.
  8. Bouschlicher MR, Cobb DS, Boyer DB. Radiopacity of compomers, flowable and conventional resin composites for posterior restorations. Oper Dent 24(1):20-25, 1999.
  9. Schwartz RS, Robbins JW. Post placement and restoration of endodontically treated teeth: A literature review. J Endod 30(5):289-301, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004770-200405000-00001
  10. Goracci C, Gorciolani G, Vichi A, Ferrari M. Lighttransmitting ability of marketed fiber posts. J Dent Res 87(12):1122-1126, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1177/154405910808701208
  11. Al-Hazaimah N, Gutteridge DL. An in vitro study into the effect of the ferrule preparation on the fracture resistance of crowned teeth incorporating prefabricated post and composite core restorations. Int Endod J 34(1);40-46, 2001. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2591.2001.00351.x
  12. Akkayan B. An in vitro study evaluating the effect of ferrule length on fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with fiber-reinforced and zirconia dowel systems. J Prosthet Dent 92(2):155-162, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2004.04.027
  13. Naumann M, Preuss A, Frankenberger R. Reinforcement effect of adhesively luted fiber reinforced composite versus titanium posts. Dent Mater 23(2):138-144, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2006.01.002
  14. Shah PMM, Sidhu SK, Chong BS, Pitt Ford TR. Radiopacity of resin-modified glass ionomer liners and bases. J Prosthet Dent 77(3):239-242, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(97)70179-3
  15. Marouf N, Sidhu SK. A study on the radiopacity of different shades of resin-modified glass-ionomer restorative materials. Oper Dent 23(1):10-14, 1998.
  16. Akerboom HBM, Kreulen CM, Amerongen WE, Mol A. Radiopacity of posterior composite resins, composite resin luting cements, and glass ionomer lining cements. J Prosthet Dent 70(4):351-355, 1993. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(93)90221-9
  17. Turgut MD, Attar N, Onen A. Radiopacity of direct esthetic restorative materials. Oper Dent 28(5):508-514, 2003.
  18. Steven Gu, Brian JR, Allam S, Lee B. Radiopacity of dental materials using a digital X-ray system. Dent Mater 22(8):765-770, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2005.11.004
  19. Brian J, Rasimick BS, Rinal PS, Barry LM, Allan SD. Radiopacity of endodontic materials on film and a digital sensor. J Endod J 33(9):1098-1101, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2007.05.005
  20. Tagger M, Katz A. Radiopacity of endodontic sealers: development of a new method for direct measurement. J Endod 29(11):751-755, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004770-200311000-00016
  21. Yoshiura K, Kawazu T, Chikui T. Assessment of image quality in dental radiographypart 1. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 87(1):115-122, 1999. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1079-2104(99)70304-5
  22. Carvalho JR, Sobrinho LC, Correr AB, Shinhoreti MAC, Consani SDN. Radiopacity of root filling materials using digital radiography. Int Endod J 40(7):514-520, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2007.01246.x
  23. Sabbagh J, Vreven J, Leloup G. Radiopacity of resin based materials measured in film radiographs and storage phosphor plate. Oper Dent 29(6):677-684, 2004.
  24. Hyo-Jung Kim, Sung-Kyo Kim. Radiopacity comparison of tooth colored restorative materials with digital radigraphy. J Kor Acad Cons Dent 25(4):499-508, 2000.
  25. Kleier DJ, Shibilski K, Averbach RE. Radiographic appearance of titanium posts in endodontically treated teeth. J Endod 25(2):128-131, 1999. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(99)80012-0
  26. Tagger M, Katz A. Radiopacity of endodontic sealers development of a new method for direct measurement. J Endod 29(11):751-755, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004770-200311000-00016
  27. Tasdemir T, Yesilyurt C, Yildirim T, Er K. Evaluation of the radiopacity of new root canal paste/sealers by digital radiography. J Endod 34(11):1388-1390, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2008.08.008
  28. Baksi BG, Sen BH, Eyuboglu TF. Differences in aluminum equivalent values of endodontic sealers: conventional versus digital radiography. J Endod 34(9):1101-1104, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2008.06.004
  29. Chang-Kyu Kim, Hyun-Wook Ryu, Hoon-Sang Chang, Byung-Do Lee, Kyung-San Min, Chan-Ui Hong. Evaluation of the radiopacity and cytotoxicity of resinous root canal sealers. J Kor Acad Cons Dent 32(5):419-425, 2007. https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2007.32.5.419
  30. Tae-Min Kim, Seo-Kyoung Kim, In-Nam Hwang, You- Chan hwang, Byung-Cheol Kang, Suk-Ja Yoon, Jae- Seo Lee, Won-Mann Oh. A comparative study on radipacity of root canal sealers. J Kor Acad Cons Dent 34(1):61-68, 2009. https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2009.34.1.061
  31. Rud J, Rud V, Munksgaard EC. Retrograde root fillingt fillientin-bonded modifigaard in compo ite. J Endod 19(9):477-480, 1996.
  32. Niederman R, Theodosopoulou JN. A systematic review of in vivo retrograde obturation materials. Int Endod J 36(9):577-585, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2591.2003.00696.x