DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

치과용 수복재료에 따른 유구치부 인접면 수복물의 생존율연구 : 후향적연구

지명관;이상호;이난영
Jih, Myeongkwan;Lee, Sangho;Lee, Nanyoung

  • 투고 : 2015.04.17
  • 심사 : 2015.06.25
  • 발행 : 2015.08.31

초록

최근 수복용 치과재료는 물리적 성질의 개선과 함께 빠르게 발전하였고 이에 따라 다양한 재료의 선택이 가능하게 되었다. 유구치 우식 수복을 위하여 아말감, 복합레진, 그리고 기성금속관이 널리 사용되어 왔으며, 최근 물성이 강화된 글라스아이오노머 시멘트가 수복재로서 사용되고 있다. 유구치부 인접면 우식증 치료에 사용되고 있는 수많은 치과용 재료들은 각각 뚜렷한 장단점을 가지고 있지만 이의 생존율에 관한 연구는 많지 않다. 이에 본 논문은 유구치의 2급 수복물에 있어서 생존율을 평가하고, 각 수복물의 종류에 따른 합병증들을 조사하여 비교 해보고자 한다. 본 논문은 700개가 넘는 표본을 조사하여, 현재 소아치과의사들에게 가장 큰 고민 중 하나인 구치부 2급 수복물의 선택에 대해 고려해볼 수 있는 결과를 도출하였다.

키워드

유치;구치;치아우식증;치과용 재료;영구적 치과용 수복물

참고문헌

  1. Korean Academy of Pediatric dentistry : Pediatric dentistry, 5th ed. Shinhung international, Inc, Seoul, 349-386, 2014.
  2. Tran LA, Messer LB : Clinicians'choices of restorative materials for children. Aust Dent J, 48: 221-32, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1834-7819.2003.tb00035.x
  3. Martignon S, Tellez M, Ekstrand KR, et al. : Sealing distal proximal caries lesions in first primary molars: efficacy after 2.5 years. Caries Res, 44:562-70, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1159/000321986
  4. Bimstein E : Frequency of alveolar bone loss adjacent to proximal caries in the primary molars and healing due to restoration of the teeth. Pediatr Dent, 14:30-3, 1992.
  5. Bimstein E, Treasure ET, Williams SM, Dever JG : Alveolar bone loss in 5-year-old New Zealand children: its prevalence and relationship to caries prevalence, socio-economic status and ethnic origin. J Clin Periodontol, 21:447-50, 1994. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.1994.tb00406.x
  6. Rasines Alcaraz MG, Veitz-Keenan A, Iheozor-Ejiofor Z : Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent or adult posterior teeth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 31:CD005620, 2014.
  7. Miriam VI, Shetty R, Hegde A : Mercury exposure levels in children with dental amalgam fillings. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent, 7:180-5, 2014. https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1261
  8. Priya EL, Ranganathan K, Wilson K, et al. : A study of sister chromatid exchange in patients with dental amalgam restorations. Indian J Dent Res, 25:772-6, 2014. https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-9290.152203
  9. Mendez-Visag C : Responsible management of dental amalgam mercury: a review of its impact on health. Rev Peru Med Exp Salud Publica, 31:725-32, 2014.
  10. Ghavamnasiri M, Eslami S, Moghadam FV, et al. : Effect of amalgam corrosion products in non-discolored dentin on the bond strength of replaced composite resin. J Conserv Dent, 18:25-9, 2015. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-0707.148884
  11. Rasmusson CG, Lundin SA : Class II restorations in six different posterior composite resins: five-year results. Swed Dent J, 19:173-82, 1995.
  12. Geurtsen W, Schoeler U : A- 4year retrospective clinical study of class I and class II composite restorations. J Dent, 25:229-32, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-5712(96)00027-9
  13. Croll TP, Nicholson JW : Glass ionomer cements in pediatric dentistry: review of the literature. Pediatr Dent, 24:423-9, 2002.
  14. Bonifacio CC, Hesse D, van Amerongen WE, et al. : The effect of GIC-brand on the survival rate of proximal-ART restorations. Int J Paediatr Dent, 23:251-8, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-263X.2012.01259.x
  15. Phonghanyudh A, Phantumvanit P, Songpaisan Y, Petersen PE : Clinical evaluation of three caries removal approaches in primary teeth: a randomised controlled trial. Community Dent Health, 29:173-8, 2012.
  16. Kemoli AM, Opinya GN, van Amerongen WE, Mwalili SM : Two-year survival rates of proximal atraumatic restorative treatment restorations in relation to glass ionomer cements and postrestoration meals consumed. Pediatr Dent, 33:246-51, 2011.
  17. Engel RJ : Chrome steel as used in children's dentistry. Chron Omaha Dist Dent Soc, 13:255-258, 1950.
  18. Randall RC : Preformed metal crowns for primary and permanent molar teeth: review of the literature. Pediatr Dent, 24:489-500, 2002.
  19. Scholtanus JD, Ozcan M : Clinical longevity of extensive direct composite restorations in amalgam replacement: up to 3.5 years follow-up. J Dent, 42:1404-10, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2014.06.008
  20. Carvalho TS, Sampaio FC, Van Amerongen WE et al. : Two years survival rate of Class II ART restorations in primary molars using two ways to avoid saliva contamination. Int J Paediatr Dent, 20:419-25, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-263X.2010.01060.x
  21. Kilpatrick NM : Durability of restorations in primary molars. J Dent, 21:67-73, 1993. https://doi.org/10.1016/0300-5712(93)90148-J
  22. Schuler IM, Hiller M, Heinrich-Weltzien R, et al. : Clinical success of stainless steel crowns placed under general anaesthesia in primary molars: An observational follow up study. J Dent, 42:1396-403, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2014.06.009
  23. Planells del Pozo P, Fuks AB : Zirconia crowns--an esthetic and resistant restorative alternative for ECC affected primary teeth. J Clin Pediatr Dent, 38:193-5, 2014. https://doi.org/10.17796/jcpd.38.3.0255q84jt2851311
  24. Casagrande L, Bento LW : Indirect pulp treatment in primary teeth: 4-year results. Am J Dent, 23:34-8, 2010.
  25. Duggal MS, Toumba KJ, Sharma NK : Clinical performance of a compomer and amalgam for the interproximal restoration of primary molars: a 24-month evaluation. Br Dent J, 193:339-42, 2002. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4801560
  26. Allison PJ, Schwartz S : Interproximal contact points and proximal caries in posterior primary teeth. Pediatr Dent, 25:334-40, 2003.