대한소아치과학회지 (Journal of the korean academy of Pediatric Dentistry)

  • 제47권3호
  • /
  • Pages.320-326
  • /
  • 2020
  • /
  • 1226-8496(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2288-3819(eISSN)
대한소아치과학회 (Korean Academy of Pediatric Dentistry)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Alkasite와 기존의 수복 재료의 압축강도 및 미세경도 비교

Comparison of Microhardness and Compressive Strength of Alkasite and Conventional Restorative Materials

  • 이건호 (단국대학교 치과대학 소아치과학교실) ;
  • 김종수 (단국대학교 치과대학 소아치과학교실) ;
  • 신지선 (단국대학교 치과대학 소아치과학교실) ;
  • 한미란 (단국대학교 치과대학 소아치과학교실)
  • Lee, Kunho (Department of Pediatric Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Dankook University) ;
  • Kim, Jongsoo (Department of Pediatric Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Dankook University) ;
  • Shin, Jisun (Department of Pediatric Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Dankook University) ;
  • Han, Miran (Department of Pediatric Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Dankook University)
  • 투고 : 2020.04.08
  • 심사 : 2020.05.09
  • 발행 : 2020.08.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

이 연구의 목적은 최근 소개된 alkasite 수복재료의 압축강도와 미세경도를 글라스아이오노머 시멘트와 유동성 복합레진과 비교하여 alkasite 수복재의 물성을 예측하는 것이었다. 압축강도와 비커스 미세경도 측정을 위해 각 재료당 20개의 시편을 제작하였다. 만능시험기를 사용하여 초 당 1 mm 횡단 속도 하에서 압축강도를 측정하였으며, 미세경도는 비커스 미세경도 측정기를 사용하여 보압 시간(dwelling time) 10초 조건 하에서 500 g의 힘을 가해 시편 제작 1시간, 1일, 7일, 14일, 21일, 35일 후에 측정하였다. 연구결과 압축강도는 복합레진이 가장 높았으며 alkasite, 글라스아이오노머 시멘트 순이었다. 미세경도 측정 결과 복합레진은 연구기간동안 미세경도의 변화가 없었으며 시편제작 1시간 후, 1일차, 7일차 측정까지 가장 높은 미세경도를 보였다. 글라스아이오노머 시멘트의 경우 7일차까지 미세경도가 증가하여 복합레진과 차이가 없어진 반면, alkasite는 14일차까지 서서히 미세경도가 증가하다가 이후 다시 감소하는 양상이 관찰되었다.

The aim of this study was to compare compressive strength and microhardness of recently introduced alkasite restorative materials with glass ionomer cement and flowable composite resin. For each material, 20 samples were prepared respectively for compressive strength and Vickers microhardness test. The compressive strength was measured with universal testing machine at crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. And microhardness was measured using Vickers Micro hardness testing machine under 500 g load and 10 seconds dwelling time at 1 hour, 1 day, 7 days, 14 days, 21 days and 35 days. The compressive strength was highest in composite resin, followed by alkasite, and glass ionomer cement. In microhardness test, composite resin, which had no change throughout experimental periods, showed highest microhardness in 1 hour, 1 day, and 7 days measurement. The glass ionomer cement showed increase in microhardness for 7 days and no difference was found with composite resin after 14 days measurement. For alkasite, maximum microhardness was measured on 14 days, but showed gradual decrease.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Croll TP, Nicholson JW : Glass ionomer cement cements in pediatric dentistry: review of the literature. Pediatr Dent, 24:423-429, 2002.
  2. Kim KC, Kim S, Choi YC, et al. : Pediatric dentistry, 5th ed. Dental wisdom, Seoul, 352-354, 2014.
  3. Swapna MU, Koshy S, Nainan MT, et al. : Comparing marginal microleakage of three bulk fill composites in Class II cavities using confocal microsope: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent, 18:409-413, 2015. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-0707.164058
  4. Todd JC : Scientific documentation: Cention N. Schaan, Liechtenstein: Ivoclar Vivadent Press, 2016.
  5. Kim YG, Kim JS, Yoo SH : Comparison of polymerization shrinkage and strain stress of several composite resins using strain guage. J Korean Acad Pediatr Dent, 31:516-526, 2004.
  6. Silva RC, Zuanon ACC, Machado JS, et al. : In vitro microhardness of glass ionomer cement cements. J Master Sci Mater Med, 18:139-142, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-006-0672-y
  7. Anusavice KJ, Shen C, Rawls HR : Phillips' science of dental materials, 12th ed. Elsevier, 2012.
  8. Berg JH : The continuum of restorative materials in pediatric dentistry - a review for the clinician. Pediatr Dent, 20:93-100, 1998.
  9. Gupta N, Jaiswal S, Bansal P, et al. : Comparison of fluoride ion release and alkalizing potential of a new bulk-fill alkasite. J Conserv Dent, 22:296-299, 2019. https://doi.org/10.4103/JCD.JCD_74_19
  10. Kini A, Shetty S, Bhat R, Shetty P : Microleakage evaluation of an alkasite restorative material: An In Vitro dye penetration study. J Contemp Dent Pract, 20:1315-1318, 2019. https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2720
  11. Della Bona A, Benetti P, Borba M, Cecchetti D : Flexural and diametral tensile strength of composite resins. Braz Oral Res, 22:84-89, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1806-83242008000100015
  12. Yoon M, Kim JS, Yoo SH : Changes of compressive strength and microhardness of composite resin, giomer, and compomer after thermocycling treatment. J Korean Acad Pediatr Dent, 37:438-444, 2010.
  13. Iftikhar N, Devashish, Rashi-Singh, et al. : A compartive evaluation of mechanical properties of four different restorative materials: An In vitro study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent, 12:47-49, 2019. https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1592
  14. Kaur M, Mann NS, Jhamb A, Batra D : A comparative evaluation of compressive strength of Cention N with glass ionomer cement cement: An in-vitro study. Int J Appl Dent Sci, 5:5-9, 2019.
  15. Calais JG, Soderholm KJ : Influence of filler type and water exposure on flexural strength of experimental composite resins. J Dent Res, 67:836-840, 1988. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345880670050801
  16. Yap AU, Chung SM, Rong Y, Tsai KT : Effects of aging on mechanical properties of composite restoratives: a depthsensing microindentation approach. Oper Dent, 29:547-553, 2004.
  17. Ruschel VC, Bona VS, Baratieri LN, Maia HP : Effect of surface sealants and polishing time on composite surface roughness and microhardness. Oper Dent, 43:408-415, 2018. https://doi.org/10.2341/17-048-L
  18. Zoergiebel J, Ilie N : Evaluation of a conventional glass ionomer cement cement with new zinc formulation: effect of coating, aging and storage agents. Clin Oral Investig, 17:619-626, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-012-0733-1
  19. Shiozawa M, Takahashi H, Iwasaki N : Fluoride release and mechanical properties after 1-year water storage of recent restorative glass ionomer cement cements. Clin Oral Investig, 18:1053-1060, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-013-1074-4
  20. De Moor RJ, Verbeeck RM : Changes in surface hardness of conventional restorative glass ionomer cement cements. Biomaterials, 19:2269-2275, 1998. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-9612(98)00135-5
  21. Jeong NJ, Kim JW, Lee SH : A study on change of compressive strength and flexural strength of dental composite resin after water storage. J Korean Acad Pediatr Dent, 28:146-158, 2001.
  22. Kim SM, Park HW, Lee JH, Seo HY : Fluoride release and microhardness of giomer according to time. J Korean Acad Pediatr Dent, 37:429-437, 2010.
  23. Dupuis V, Moya F, Payan J, Bartala M : Depth microhardness of glass ionomer cement cements. Biomaterials, 17:71-71, 1996. https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-9612(96)80758-7