구강회복응용과학지 (Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science)

  • 제31권1호
  • /
  • Pages.1-9
  • /
  • 2015
  • /
  • 2384-4353(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2384-4272(eISSN)
대한턱관절교합학회 (Korean Academy of Stomatognathic Function and Occlusion)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

중합방법에 따른 여러 이중중합 레진 시멘트의 기계적 성질 평가

Evaluation of mechanical properties of several dual-cure resin cements by curing modes

  • 김수연 (강릉원주대학교 치과대학 치과보존학교실) ;
  • 박세희 (강릉원주대학교 치과대학 치과보존학교실) ;
  • 김진우 (강릉원주대학교 치과대학 치과보존학교실) ;
  • 조경모 (강릉원주대학교 치과대학 치과보존학교실)
  • Kim, Soo-Yeon (Department of Conservative Dentistry, 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 : 2014.10.27
  • 심사 : 2015.01.08
  • 발행 : 2015.03.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

목적: 중합방법 및 측정시기에 따른 여러 이중중합 레진 시멘트의 기계적 성질인 압축강도와 간접인장강도를 비교 평가하는 것이다. 연구 재료 및 방법: 1개의 레진강화형 글래스아이오노머 시멘트인 FujiCEM 2, 2개의 전통적인 이중중합 레진 시멘트인 RelyX ARC와 Multilink N, 2개의 이중중합 자가접착 레진 시멘트인 RelyX U200과 G-CEM LinkAce를 사용하였다. 제조사의 지시에 따라 시멘트를 혼합하여 압축강도와 간접인장강도 측정을 위한 시편을 제작하였다. 중합방법 및 측정시기의 영향을 평가하기 위해 시멘트에 따라 4가지 실험 조건으로 나눴고, 만능시험기로 압축강도와 간접인장강도 측정하였다. 각각의 강도 값을 계산 후 통계처리 하였다. 결과: 압축강도에서는 RelyX ARC의 광중합과 Multilink N의 광중합, 간접인장강도에서는 RelyX ARC의 광중합을 제외하고 모든 중합방법에서 24시간 뒤 측정된 강도가 즉시 측정한 강도보다 더 높은 값을 보여주었다. FujiCEM 2는 시멘트간 비교에서 가장 낮은 강도 값을 보였다(P < 0.05). 결론: 치과용 시멘트 중에서 최근 출시된 이중중합 자가접착 레진 시멘트는 기존의 레진 시멘트와 비교시 제품별로 차이가 있었으나, 압축강도와 간접인장강도에서는 유의한 차이를 보이지 않았다.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the mechanical properties of several dual-cure cements by different curing modes. Materials and Methods: One resin-modified glass ionomer cement (FujiCEM 2), two conventional dual-cure resin cements (RelyX ARC, Multilink N), and two dual-cure self-adhesive resin cements (RelyX U200, G-CEM LinkAce) were used. To evaluate the influence of the curing methods, each cements divided into four conditions (n = 20); Condition 1: self-curing for 10 minutes, Condition 2: immediate after 20 seconds light-curing, Condition 3: 24 hours after self-curing, Condition 4: 24 hours after light-curing. The compressive strength and diametral tensile strength were measured with a universal testing machine. All data were statistically analyzed using t-test, one-way ANOVA and Scheffe's test. Results: The results showed the compressive strength and diametral tensile strength after 24 hours in all curing modes were higher than immediate except RelyX ARC light-cured and Multilink N light-cured. The FujiCEM 2 showed lowest values (P < 0.05). Conclusion: The outcome was cement-depend, but there is no significant difference about compressive strength and diametral tensile strength between dual-cure self-adhesive resin cements and conventional resin cements. And this result will be used as a base line data selecting resin cement for favorable long-term prognosis.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. The korean academy of conservative dentistry. Operative dentistry. 4th ed. Seoul; DaehanNarae publibhing Inc.; 2003. p. 217-20.
  2. Piwowarczyk A, Lauer HC. Mechanical properties of luting cements after water storage. Oper Dent 2003;28:535-42.
  3. Li ZC, White SN. Mechanical properties of dental luting cements. J Prosthet Dent 1999;81:597-609. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(99)70216-7
  4. The korea professor conference for dental materials. Dental materials. 4th ed. Seoul; Koonja publishing Inc.; 2006. p. 46-50, 237-8.
  5. Rosenstiel SF, Land MF, Crispin BJ. Dental luting agents: a review of the current literature. J Prosthet Dent 1998;80:280-301. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(98)70128-3
  6. Smales RJ, Webster DA. Restoration deterioration related to later failure. Oper Dent 1993;18:130-7.
  7. de la Macorra JC, Pradies G. Conventional and adhesive luting cements. Clin Oral Investig 2002;6:198-204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-002-0184-1
  8. Ferracane JL, Stansbury JW, Burke FJ. Self-adhesive resin cements - chemistry, properties and clinical considerations. J Oral Rehabil 2011;38:295-314. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2010.02148.x
  9. Yuzugullu B, Ciftci Y, Saygili G, Canay S. Diametral tensile and compressive strengths of several types of core materials. J Prosthodont 2008;17:102-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.2007.00269.x
  10. Cattani-Lorente MA, Godin C, Meyer JM. Early strength of glass ionomer cements. Dent Mater 1993;9:57-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/0109-5641(93)90107-2
  11. Ban S, Hasegawa J, Anusavice KJ. Effect of loading conditions on bi-axial flexure strength of dental cements. Dent Mater 1992;8:100-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/0109-5641(92)90063-I
  12. White SN, Yu Z. Physical properties of fixed prosthodontic, resin composite luting agents. Int J Prosthodont 1993;6:384-9.
  13. Canay S, Hersek N, Akca K, Ciftci Y. The effect of weight loss of liquid on the diametral tensile strengths of various kinds of luting cements. Int Dent J 1996;46:52-8.
  14. Scherrer SS, de Rijk WG, Belser UC, Meyer JM. Effect of cement film thickness on the fracture resistance of a machinable glass-ceramic. Dent Mater 1994;10:172-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/0109-5641(94)90028-0
  15. Mueller HJ. Fracture toughness and fractography of dental cements, lining, build-up, and filling materials. Scanning Microsc 1990;4:297-307.
  16. Editor. Book ISO Specifications 9917-1. City; 2007. Chapter Chapter, ISO Specifications 9917-1.
  17. Yap AU, Cheang PH, Chay PL. Mechanical properties of two restorative reinforced glass-ionomer cements. J Oral Rehabil 2002;29:682-8. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2842.2002.00908.x
  18. Ferracane JL. Correlation between hardness and degree of conversion during the setting reaction of unfilled dental restorative resins. Dent Mater 1985;1:11-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0109-5641(85)80058-0
  19. Pegoraro TA, da Silva NR, Carvalho RM. Cements for use in esthetic dentistry. Dent Clin North Am 2007;51:453-71, x. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cden.2007.02.003
  20. Manso AP, Silva NR, Bonfante EA, Pegoraro TA, Dias RA, Carvalho RM. Cements and adhesives for all-ceramic restorations. Dent Clin North Am 2011;55:311-32, ix. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cden.2011.01.011
  21. Rueggeberg FA, Caughman WF. The influence of light exposure on polymerization of dual-cure resin cements. Oper Dent 1993;18:48-55.
  22. Song CK, Park SH, Kim JW, Cho KM. Physical properties of different automixing resin cements and the shear bond strength on dentin. J Dent Rehabil Appl Sci 2009;25:435-42.
  23. Diaz-Arnold AM, Vargas MA, Haselton DR. Current status of luting agents for fixed prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent 1999;81:135-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(99)70240-4
  24. Gerth HU, Dammaschke T, Zuchner H, Schafer E. Chemical analysis and bonding reaction of RelyX Unicem and Bifix composites-a comparative study. Dent Mater 2006;22:934-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2005.10.004
  25. Vrochari AD, Eliades G, Hellwig E, Wrbas KT. Curing efficiency of four self-etching, self-adhesive resin cements. Dent Mater 2009;25:1104-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2009.02.015