상아질-복합레진 접착계면의 파괴거동에 대한 연구 = A study on fractural behavior of dentin-resin interface

국문 초록 (Abstract)

파괴인성 실험은 상아질-복합레진 계면의 파절 저항성을 평가할 수 있는 임상적으로 신뢰 할 만한 방법이다. 본 연구의 목적은 상아질-레진 계면의 파괴인성과 미세인장결합강도를 측정하여 이 두 실험방법이 상아질-레진 결합을 평가하는데 가지는 유용성을 비교, 평가하는 것이다. 파괴인성 측정에는 short-rod 시편 형태를 이용하였다. 각 시편에서는 소의 하악절치에서 결단한 치아 절편을 포함시켜 결합면을 얻었다.
미세인장 결합강도 또한 소의 하악절치 순면을 연마하여 상아질을 노출시킨 후 상아질 접착제를 도포하고 레진 블록을 축조하여 측정하였다.
각 시편들은 37℃ 증류수에 24시간 보관한 후 각 실험방법에 맞게 인장력을 가하여 측정치를 구하였다. 통계분석은 95% 신뢰수준의 ANOVA와 Tukey's test를 이용하였으며, 두 실험방법의 상관관계를 보기 위해 Pearson's 상관계수를 계산하였다. 전자현미경 검사를 통해 미세구조 또한 관찰하여 다음과 같은 결론을 얻었다.
1. 파괴인성은 SE군이 가장 높은 값을 나타냈으며, Adper Single Bond 2 (SB), OptiBond Solo (OB), ONE-STEP PLUS (OS), ScotchBond Multi-purpose (SM)군 순으로 나타났고, Clearfil SE Bond (SE)군은 다른 실험군에 비해 유의하게 높은 값을 나타내었으나 (p < 0.05) 다른 실험군 사이에는 유의차가 없었다 (p > 0.05).
2. 미세인장결합강도는 SE군이 가장 높은 값을 나타냈으며, SB, OB, SM, 그리고 OS순으로 나타났다. SB, OB, SM, SE군 사이에는 통계학적인 유의차가 없었으나 (p > 0.05) OS군의 미세인장결합강도는 다른 4개의 실험군에 비해 낮은 값을 나타내었다 (p < 0.05).
3. FE-SEM관찰에서 피막도가 두껍게 나타난 SM군, SE군과 피막도가 얇은 OS군, OB군, SB군 간에 파괴양상이 다르게 나타났다. 즉 전자는 접착층 내 파괴가 일어난 반면, 후자는 resin tag나 레진 침투층 내에서 파절되는 양상을 나타내었다.
4. 파괴인성과 미세인장결합강도 사이에는 통계학적으로 유의한 상관 관계가 없었다 (r^(2) = 0.223, t = 0.927).
이와 같은 결과를 토대로, 상아질 접착제의 임상적 효율성을 평가하고자 할 때는 결합강도 뿐만 아니라, 파괴인성도 함께 고려하여 임상적용의 예견성을 높여야 한다고 결론내릴 수 있다.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The fracture toughness test is believed as a clinically' relevant method for assessing the fracture resistance of the dentinal restoratives. The objectives of this study were to measure the fracture toughness (K_(lC)) and microtensile bond strength of dentin-resin composite interface and compare their relationship for their use in evaluation of the integrity of the dentin-resin bond.
A minimum of six short-rod specimens for fracture toughness test and fifteen specimens for microtensile bond strength test was fabricated for each group of materials used. After all specimens storing for 24 hours in distilled water at 37℃, they were tensile-loaded with an EZ tester universal testing machin. Statistical analysis was performed using ANOVA and Tukey's test at the 95% confidence level, Pearson's coefficient was used to verify the correlation between the mean of fracture toughness and microtensile bond strength. FE-SEM was employed on fractured surface to describe the crack propagation.
Fracture toughness value of Clearfil SE Bond (SE) was the highest, followed by Adper Single Bond 2 (SB), OptiBond Solo (OB), ONE-STEP PLUS (OS), ScotchBond Multi-purpose (SM) and there was significant difference between SE and other 4 groups (p < 0.05). There were, however, no significant difference among SB, OB, OS, SM (p > 0.05). Microtensile bond', strength of SE was the highest, followed by SB, OB, SM, OS and OS only showed significant lower value (p < 0.05). There was no correlation between fracture toughness and microtensile bond strength values. FE-SEM examination revealed that dentin bonding agent showed different film thickness and different failure pattern according to the film thickness.
From the limited results of this study, it was noted that there was statistically no correlation between KIC and μTBS. We can conclude that for obtaining the reliability of bond strength test of dentin bonding agent, we must pay more attention to the test procedure and its profound scrutiny. [J Kor Acad Cons Dent 32(3):208-221, 2007]

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 "참고문헌1. Nakabayashi N. Resin reinforced dentin due to infiltrationof monomers into the dentin at the adhesive interface.J Dent Mater 1" 78-81, 1982.

2 "van Dijken JWV. Clinical evaluation of four dentinbonding agents in class Ⅴ abrasion lesions" 319-324, 1994.

3 "its influence on dentinaladhesion. Part Ⅲ. Quint Int 24" 571-582, 1993.

4 "Young RJ and Beaumont PWR. Failure of brittle polymersby slow crack growth. Part 2. Failure processesin a silica particle-filled epoxy resin composite. JMater Sci 10" 1343-1350, 1975.

5 "Wei SHY. Structuralevidence of a sealed tissue interface with a total-etchwet-bonding technique in vivo. J Dent Res 73" 629-636, 1994.

6 "Vanherle G. Morphological aspects of the resin-dentininterdiffusion zone with different dentin adhesive systems.J Dent Res 7" i (i): 1530-1540, 1992.

7 "Vanherle G. Comparative SEM andTEM examination of the ultrastructure of the resindentininterdiffusion zone. J Dent Res 72" 495-501, 1993.

8 "The use of flowable composites as filled adhesives" 18 (18): 227-238, 2002.

9 "The four generations of dentin bonding" 8 : 88-92, 1995.

10 "So¨derholm KJM. Correlation of in vivo and in vitroperformance of adhesive restorative materials areport of the ASC MD156 Task Group on Test Methodsfor the Adhesion of Restorative Materials. Dent Mater7" 74-83, 1991.

11 "Sorenson JA and Dixit NV. In vitro shear bondstrength of dentin adhesives. Int J Prosthodont 4" 117-125, 1991.

12 "Shannon JL.Compliance calibration of the short rod chevron-notchspecimen for fracture toughness testing of brittle material.Int J Frac 125-133" 1982.

13 "Rueggeberg FA and Margeson DH. The effect of oxygeninhibition on the unfilled/filled composite system. JDent Res 69" 1652-1658, 1990.

14 "Raman mapping of the dentin/adhesiveinterface." 50 : 1500-1504, 1996.

15 "Quantitative analysis of the dentin adhesive interface by Auger spectroscopy" 75 : 1027-1033, 1996.

16 "Preston JD. Report of the committee on scientificinvestigation of the American Academy ofRestorative Dentistry. J Prosthet Dent 68" 137-190, 1992.

17 "Peters MC. Fracturemechanicsparameters of the composite-enamel bond. JDent Res 69" 31-35, 1990.

18 "Perspectives on strength." 11 (11): 103-110, 1995.

19 "Noroozi S. Theeffect of local interfacial geometry on the measurementof the tensile bone strength to dentin. J Dent 70" 889-93, 1991.

20 "Nominal Shear or Fracture Mechanics in the Assessment of Composite-Dentin Adhesion?" 79 (79): 41-48, 2000.

21 "Monomers with lowoxygen inhibition as enamel/dentin adhesives." 12 : 256-261, 1996.

22 "Meta-analytical Review of Factors Involves in Dentin Adherence" 80 (80): 1605-1614, 2001.

23 "Matsumoto H. Variablesaffecting the fracture toughness of dental composites. JDent Res 66" 1140-1145, 1987.

24 "Lloyd CH and Adamson M. The development of fracturetoughness and fracture strength in posteriorrestorative materials. Dent Mater 3" 225-231, 1987.

25 "Lin CP and Douglas WH. Failure mechanisms at thehuman dentin-resin interface" 1037-1047, 1994.

26 "Kishi T. Microfracturemechanisms of dental resin composites containingspherically-shaped filler particles. J Dent Res73" 499-504, 1994.

27 "Influence of filler addition to bonding agents on shearbond strength to bovine dentin." 11 (11): 234-238, 1995.

28 "Griffith AA. The phenomena of rupture and flow insolids. Phil Trans Series A 221" 163-198, 1920.

29 "Goldman M. Fracture properties of composite and glassionomer dental restorative materials. J Biomed MaterRes 19" 771-783, 1985.

30 "Fracture toughness of experimental dental composites aged in ethanol" 74 (74): 1418-1423, 1995.

31 "Fracture resistance of dentin-composite interfaces using different adhesive resin layers" 29 (29): 217-225, 2001.

32 "Fracture mechanics principles" 11 (11): 111-112, 1995.

33 "Evans AG.Development of a test method for measuring the mixedmode fracture resistance of bimaterial interfaces. MechMater 8" 269-283, 1990.

34 "Elastic modulus of resin-based dental restorative materials : a microindentation approach" 72 (72): 246-253, 2005.

35 "Effects of adhesive composition on microtensile bond strength to human dentin" 14 (14): 340-343, 2001.

36 "Effect of the adhesive layer thicknesson the fracture toughness of dental adhesiveresin." 19 (19): 153-163, 2000.

37 "Dennison JB. Parametersaffecting in vitro bond strength of composites to enameland dentin. Dent Mater 5" 153-156, 1989.

38 "Conn LJ. Clinical and interfacial laboratory evaluationof a bonding agent in cervical abrasions. Am J Dent7" 307-311, 1994.

39 "Comparison of fourmodes of fracture toughness testing for dental composites." 12 : 38-43, 1996.

40 "Chemical characterizationof the resin-dentin interface by micro-Raman spectroscopy. J Dent Res 72" 1423-1428, 1993.

41 "Chemical bonding potential of adhesive materials to hydroxyapatite" 82 : 2003.

42 "Carracho AJL.Shear bond strength and scanning electron microscopicobservation of current dentinal adhesives. Quint Int22" 831-839, 1991.

43 "Brunson WD. Examining tooth flexureeffects on cervical restorations" 41-47, 1991.

44 "Bradley EL. Effect of adhesivethickness on the shear bond strength of Scotchbond2/Silux to dentin. Am J Dent 2" 341-344, 1989.

45 "Bonding to enameland dentin a brief history and state of the art." 26 : 95-110, 1995.

46 "Barker LM. A simplified method for measuring planestrain fracture toughness. Eng Fract Mech 9" 361-369, 1977.

47 "Adhesion to Enamel and Dentin : Current Status and Future Challenges" 28 (28): 215-235, 2003.

48 "Adhesion testing of dentin bonding agents : a reviews" 11 : 117-125, 1995.