연구목적: 2종의 열가압 도재 (e.max Press, Empress Esthetic)와 법랑질 간의 마모양상을 알아보기 위하여 장석계 도재 및 제 3형 금합금과 비교, 관찰하였다. 연구 재료 및 방법: 열가압 도재 e.max Press, Empress Esthetic 및 금속도재관 제작용 장석계 도재 Cermaco 3, 제 3형 금합금으로 원반형 시편을 제작하고, 상대 마모재로는 발거된 건전한 소구치의 교두를 이용하여 Pin-on-disk tribometer 상에서 마모시험 하였다. 법랑질의 마모량은 마모 전후 치아 시편의 무게 변화를 측정하여 부피로 환산하였고, 도재 및 금합금 시편의 평균 표면 조도와 마모트랙 깊이를 표면조도기로, 마모트랙 폭을 주사전자현미경으로 측정하여 마모 양상을 비교하였다. 결과: 1. 법랑질의 마모량은 Ceramco 3군에서 가장 크고 Empress Esthetic군, e.max Press군, 금합금군 순으로 작았으며, Ceramco 3군과 Empress Esthetic군 사이와, Empress Esthetic군, e.max Press군 및 금합금군 사이에는 유의한 차이가 없었다 (P>.05). 2. 마모시험 후 도재 시편의 평균 표면 조도는 Ceramco 3군, Empress Esthetic군, e.max Press군 순으로 작았으며, Empress Esthetic군과 Ceramco 3군 사이에는 유의한 차이가 없었다 (P>.05). 3. 마모트랙의 깊이는 모든 군 사이에 유의한 차이는 없었고 (P>.05), 마모트랙의 폭은 법랑질 마모량 순서와 동일하게 Ceramco 3군, Empress Esthetic군, e.max Press군, 금합금군 순으로 작았으며, e.max Press군과 Empress Esthetic군 사이 및 Empress Esthetic군과 Ceramco 3군 사이에 유의한 차이는 없었다 (P>.05). 결론: 열가압 도재는 장석계 도재보다 법랑질을 더 마모시키지는 않았다.
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the wear characteristics of human enamel opposing 2 heat-pressed ceramics (e.max Press and Empress Esthetic), conventional feldspathic porcelain (Ceramco 3) and type III gold alloy. Material and methods: Intact cusps of extracted premolars were used for enamel specimens. Five disk samples were made for each of two heat-pressed ceramics groups, conventional feldspathic porcelain group and type III gold alloy group. Wear tests were conducted in distilled water using a pin-on-disk tribometer. The amount of enamel wear was determined by weighing the enamel specimens before and after wear tests, and the weight was converted to volumes by average density. The wear tracks were analyzed by scanning electron microscopy and surface profilometer to elucidate the wear characteristics. Results: 1. Ceramco 3 led to the greatest amount of enamel wear followed by Empress Esthetic, e.max Press and type III gold alloy. However, there was no significant difference between Ceramco 3 and Empress Esthetic (P>.05), and there were also no significant differences among Empress Esthetic, e.max Press and type III gold alloy (P>.05). 2. The average surface roughness of e.max Press after wear test was smallest followed by Empress Esthetic and Ceramco 3, but there was no significant difference between Empress Esthetic and Ceramco 3 (P>.05). 3. There were no significant differences among the depth of wear tracks of all the groups (P>.05). The group that showed the largest width of wear track was Ceramco 3 followed by Empress Esthetic, e.max Press and type III gold alloy. However, there was no significant difference between e.max Press and Empress Esthetic (P>.05), and there was also no significant difference between Empress Esthetic and Ceramco 3 (P>.05). Conclusion: Within the limits of this study, heat-pressed ceramics were not more abrasive than conventional feldspathic porcelain.
