請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/84495
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 曾琬瑜(Wan-Yu Tseng) | |
dc.contributor.advisor | 曾琬瑜(Wan-Yu Tseng | yeshes@gmail.com | ), | |
dc.contributor.author | Yu-Wei Liao | en |
dc.contributor.author | 廖育緯 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2023-03-19T22:13:25Z | - |
dc.date.copyright | 2022-10-13 | |
dc.date.issued | 2022 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2022-09-26 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 1.衛生福利部統計處, 109年度全民健康保險醫療統計年報. 2020. 2.Schmalz, G. and D. Arenholt-Bindslev, Biocompatibility Of Dental Materials. 2009. 3.Bouillaguet, S., Biological risks of resin-based materials to the dentin-pulp complex. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med, 2004. 15(1):47-60. 4.Williams, D.W., et al., 2-Hydroxyethyl methacrylate inhibits migration of dental pulp stem cells. J Endod, 2013. 39(9): p. 1156-60. 5.Schweikl, H., G. Spagnuolo, and G. Schmalz, Genetic and cellular toxicology of dental resin monomers. J Dent Res, 2006. 85(10): p. 870-7. 6.Schneider, T.R., et al., Effects of dental composite resin monomers on dental pulp cells. Dent Mater J, 2019. 38(4): p. 579-583. 7.Li, N., et al., Effect of dental material HEMA monomer on human dental pulp cells. Artif Cells Blood Substit Immobil Biotechnol, 1999. 27(1): p. 85-90. 8.Inamitsu, H., et al., The dental resin monomers HEMA and TEGDMA have inhibitory effects on osteoclast differentiation with low cytotoxicity. J Appl Toxicol, 2017. 37(7): p. 817-824. 9.Galler, K.M., et al., TEGDMA reduces mineralization in dental pulp cells. J Dent Res, 2011. 90(2): p. 257-62. 10.Diomede, F., et al., HEMA Effects on Autophagy Mechanism in Human Dental Pulp Stem Cells. Materials (Basel), 2019. 12(14). 11.A. Paranjpe, L.C.F.B. and W.R.H. M.-y. Wang, and A. Jewett*, Resin Monomer 2-Hydroxyethyl Methacrylate (HEMA) is a Potent Inducer of Apoptotic Cell Death in Human and Mouse Cells. J Dent Res, 2005. 84(2):172-177. 12.Dutra-Correa, M., C. Anauate-Netto, and V.E. Arana-Chavez, Density and diameter of dentinal tubules in etched and non-etched bovine dentine examined by scanning electron microscopy. Arch Oral Biol, 2007. 52(9): p. 850-5. 13.Camargo, M.A., M.M. Marques, and A.A. de Cara, Morphological analysis of human and bovine dentine by scanning electron microscope investigation. Arch Oral Biol, 2008. 53(2): p. 105-8. 14.Reinhard Schilkea, et al., Comparison of the number and diameter of dentinal tubules in human and bovine dentine by scanning electron microscopic investigation. Archives of Oral Biology, 2000. 45 (2000) 355-361. 15.Liu, Y., et al., Limitations in bonding to dentin and experimental strategies to prevent bond degradation. J Dent Res, 2011. 90(8): p. 953-68. 16.Hiraishi, N., et al., Role of 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate in the interaction of dental monomers with collagen studied by saturation transfer difference NMR. J Dent, 2014. 42(4): p. 484-9. 17.Malacarne, J., et al., Water sorption/solubility of dental adhesive resins. Dent Mater, 2006. 22(10): p. 973-80. 18.I. Sideridou*, V.T., G. Papanastasiou, Study of water sorption, solubility and modulus of elasticity of light-cured dimethacrylate-based dental resins. Biomaterials, 2002. 24 (2003) 655–665. 19.Satoshi IMAZATO, et al., Water Sorption, Degree of Conversion, and Hydrophobicity of Resins containing Bis-GMA and TEGDMA. Dental Materials Journal, 1998. 18(1): 124-132,. 20.A, P., Resin composites in dentistry- the monomer systems. Eur J Oral Sci, 1997. 105: 97-116. 21.Szczesio-Wlodarczyk, A., et al., The Influence of Low-Molecular-Weight Monomers (TEGDMA, HDDMA, HEMA) on the Properties of Selected Matrices and Composites Based on Bis-GMA and UDMA. Materials (Basel), 2022. 15(7). 22.N. Nakabayashi, K.T., Effect of HEMA on bonding to dentin. Dental Material 1992. 8:125-130. 23.Y. Nakaokia, et al., Dimensional changes of demineralized dentin treated with HEMA primers. Dental Materials Journal, 2000. 16 (2000) 441–446. 24.Ayad A. Ahmeda, Mustafa M. Hassanb, and A.I. Abdallab, Microshear bond strength of universal adhesives to dentin used in total‑etch and self‑etch modes. Tanta Dental Journal, 2018. 15:91–98. 25.Yoshihara, K., et al., Nanolayering of phosphoric acid ester monomer on enamel and dentin. Acta Biomater, 2011. 7(8): p. 3187-95. 26.Van Meerbeek, B., et al., State of the art of self-etch adhesives. Dent Mater, 2011. 27(1): p. 17-28. 27.Fukegawa, D., et al., Chemical interaction of phosphoric acid ester with hydroxyapatite. J Dent Res, 2006. 85(10): p. 941-4. 28.Cardoso, G.C., et al., Bond Stability of Universal Adhesives Applied To Dentin Using Etch-And-Rinse or Self-Etch Strategies. Braz Dent J, 2019. 30(5): p. 467-475. 29.Arun Jayasheel , et al., Comparative Evaluation of shear Bond Strength of universal Dental Adhesives -An in vitro study. J Clin Exp Dent., 2017. 9(7):e892-6. 30.Roh, J., H. Shin, and M.H. Hong, Characteristics of 10-Methacryloyloxidecyl Dihydrogen Phosphate Monomer in Self-Etching Two-Bottled Dental Adhesive System: Comparison with Commercial Products. Materials (Basel), 2020. 13(16). 31.Yoshihara, K., et al., Self-etch monomer-calcium salt deposition on dentin. J Dent Res, 2011. 90(5): p. 602-6. 32.Inoue, S., et al., Hydrolytic stability of self-etch adhesives bonded to dentin. J Dent Res, 2005. 84(12): p. 1160-4. 33.Hiraishi, N., et al., Monomer-collagen interactions studied by saturation transfer difference NMR. J Dent Res, 2013. 92(3): p. 284-8. 34.Carrilho, E., et al., 10-MDP Based Dental Adhesives: Adhesive Interface Characterization and Adhesive Stability-A Systematic Review. Materials (Basel), 2019. 12(5). 35.Quigley, N.P., et al., Clinical efficacy of methods for bonding to zirconia: A systematic review. J Prosthet Dent, 2021. 125(2): p. 231-240. 36.Chang, J.C., Amalgam repair with a 4-META resin. J Prosthet Dent, 2004. 92(5): p. 506-7. 37.Hanabusa, M., et al., Interference of functional monomers with polymerization efficiency of adhesives. Eur J Oral Sci, 2016. 124(2): p. 204-9. 38.Hume, W.R. and T.M. Gerzina, BLOAVAILABILITY OF COMPONENTS OF RESIN-BASED MATERIALS WHICH ARE APPLIED TO TEETH. Crit Rev Oral Biol Ued, 1996. 7(2):172-179. 39.W, G., Substances released from dental resin composites and glass ionomer cements. Eur J Oral Sci 1998. 106: 687–695. 40.G6pferich, A., Mechanisms of polymer degradation and erosion . Biomaterials, 1996. Vol. 17 No. 2. 41.M. Peumans, et al., The Influence of Direct Composite Additions for the Correction of Tooth Form and:or Position on Periodontal Health. A Retrospective Study. J. Periodontol, 1998. 69:422-427. 42.WALLENHAMMAR, L.-M., et al., Contact allergy and hand eczema in Swedish dentists. Contact Dermatitis, 2000. 43, 192–199. 43.ANTHONY T. J. GOON, et al., Contact allergy to (meth)acrylates in the dental series in southern Sweden- simultaneous positive patch test reaction patterns and possible screening allergens. Contact Dermatitis 2006. 55: 219–226. 44.Hallström, U., Adverse reaction to a fissure sealant: report of case. ASDC journal of dentistry for children, 1993. 60(2): p. 143-146. 45.Wawrzynkiewicz, A., et al., The Toxicity of Universal Dental Adhesives: An In Vitro Study. Polymers (Basel), 2021. 13(16). 46.Pagano, S., et al., Cytotoxicity of universal dental adhesive systems: Assessment in vitro assays on human gingival fibroblasts. Toxicol In Vitro, 2019. 60: p. 252-260. 47.Nowicka, A., et al., Clinical and Histological Evaluation of Direct Pulp Capping on Human Pulp Tissue Using a Dentin Adhesive System. Biomed Res Int, 2016. 2016: p. 2591273. 48.Kusdemir, M., et al., Evaluation of cytotoxic effects of six self-etching adhesives with direct and indirect contact tests. Dent Mater J, 2011. 30(6): p. 799-805. 49.Kim, E.C., et al., Effect of the Acidic Dental Resin Monomer 10-methacryloyloxydecyl Dihydrogen Phosphate on Odontoblastic Differentiation of Human Dental Pulp Cells. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol, 2015. 117(5): p. 340-9. 50.Iso, B. and B. STANDARD, Biological evaluation of medical devices. Part, 2009. 1: p. 10993. 51.Heblinga, J., E.M.A. Girob, and C.A.S. Costa, Human pulp response after an adhesive system application in deep cavities. Journal of Dentistry 1999. 27 (1999) 557–564. 52.HAMID, A. and W.R. HUME, The effect of dentine thickness on diffusion of resin monomers in vitro. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation, 1997. 24; 20-25. 53.Garberoglio, R. and M. Brännström, Scanning electron microscopic investigation of human dentinal tubules. Archives of oral biology, 1976. 21(6): p. 355-362. 54.Calvert, K.L., et al., Characterization of commercial rigid polyurethane foams used as bone analogs for implant testing. Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine, 2010. 21(5): p. 1453-1461. 55.Kim, M.J., K.N. Kim, and K.M. Kim, Cytotoxicity Test of One-Step Self-Etching Bonding Agents by Standardized Dentin Barrier Test Using Polyurethane Discs. Materials (Basel), 2013. 7(1): p. 85-96. 56.Chan, F.K.-M., K. Moriwaki, and M.a.J.D. Rosa, Detection of Necrosis by Release of Lactate . Immune Homeostasis: Methods and Protocols, Methods in Molecular Biology, 2013. vol. 979 65-70. 57.Altintas, S.H. and A. Usumez, HPLC analysis of HEMA released from two different adhesive systems. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater, 2009. 91(2): p. 924-9. 58.Mahdhaouia, K., B. Fournierb, and M.A. Derbannea, Unbound monomers do diffuse through the dentin barrier. Dental Materials, 2017. 59.Altunsoy, M., M. Selim Botsali, and H.E. Ulker, Evaluation of HEMA Released from Four Different Adhesive Systems by HPLC. Journal of Applied Biomaterials & Functional Materials, 2015. 13(2): p. 100-105. 60.梁庭珊, 牙科黏著劑於聚氨酯泡棉之單體通透濃度及細胞毒性測試. 2017. 61.Çetingüç, A., S. Ölmez, and N. Vural, HEMA diffusion from dentin bonding agents in young and old primary molars in vitro. Dental Materials, 2007. 23(3): p. 302-307. 62.Kerezoudi, C., et al., Evaluation of monomer leaching from a resin cement through dentin by a novel model. Dent Mater, 2016. 32(11): p. e297-e305. 63.Putzeys, E., et al., In-vitro transdentinal diffusion of monomers from adhesives. J Dent, 2018. 75: p. 91-97. 64.A., R., et al., Dentin diffusion of HEMA released from etch-and-rinse and self-etch bonding systems. Eur J Oral Sci, 2007. 115: 510–516. 65.Krifka, S., et al., The influence of glutathione on redox regulation by antioxidant proteins and apoptosis in macrophages exposed to 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA). Biomaterials, 2012. 33(21): p. 5177-86. 66.Chang, M.-C., et al., The role of reactive oxygen species and hemeoxygenase-1 expression in the cytotoxicity, cell cycle alteration and apoptosis of dental pulp cells induced by BisGMA. Biomaterials, 2010. 31(32): p. 8164-8171. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/84495 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 前言 現今的牙科治療中廣泛運用牙科黏著劑,舉凡樹脂填補、嵌體或貼片治療皆有使用。但在臨床上副作用常出現術後敏感的情形,在靠近牙髓腔的位置可能會引發牙髓發炎甚至導致壞死的可能。其原因可能包含未去除完全的受感染齒質、未聚合樹脂單體的細胞的毒性、樹脂聚合過程中收縮的力量以及咬合干擾。牙科使用的樹脂單體是否會造成臨床組織壞死各方論述不一,但多數研究認為:單體濃度決定對細胞影響的毒性程度。 為了測量透過牙本質釋放到牙髓腔的單體濃度,目前許多研究設計各種屏障實驗,但實驗結果往往受制於屏障材料的條件,目前實驗多以人類或動物的牙齒牙本質作為屏障材料,但其通透度會隨生物體本身的年齡、飲食習慣、齲齒或個體間的差異等因素而有所不同,進而影響實驗結果。本實驗研究動機即在尋找一種穩定且被認可的材料,以取代牙本質作為標準化的屏障實驗材料。 10-MDP酸性單體在現今臨床應用十分廣泛,尤其常見於自酸蝕牙科黏著系統與自聚合/光聚合樹脂黏合劑;但是針對10-MDP單體對人體牙髓細胞反應的研究結果遠少於其他常用樹脂單體。因此,本次實驗第二部分是利用牙本質屏障實驗測量臨床10-MDP釋放出來的濃度,並培養細胞,量測10-MDP單體對牙髓細胞造成的影響。 研究目的 本實驗目的在於比較人類牙本質與聚氨酯泡棉(Polyurethane foam, 40-pcf, PS, Sawbones®, Washington, DC, USA)的HEMA及10-MDP單體滲透濃度,以及牙科黏著劑透過屏障的單體對人類牙髓細胞的影響;另外配置不同濃度的10-MDP單體溶液培養細胞以觀察細胞的反應及變化。 研究方法 一、 單體滲透測試:屏障材料使用0.5 mm及1 mm厚度的牙本質及聚氨酯泡棉,在材料上依廠商指示塗抹兩種含10-MDP單體的牙科黏著劑(3M Single Bond Universal Adhesive, Ivoclar Tetric-N Bond Universal Adhesive)並照光聚合後,收集第15mins、30mins、1hr、8hr、24hr、48hr共六個時間點的滲透液,並以高效能液相層析儀(HPLC)分析滲透液之單體濃度。 二、 細胞活性測試:利用0.5 mm及1 mm厚度的牙本質及聚氨酯泡棉試片,分別塗抹兩種牙科黏著劑,使其滲透進細胞培養液中,並在第一(短期)、第四(中期)、第七(長期)天共三個時間點,利用Alamar Blue assay觀察牙髓細胞存活率。 三、 針對現今應用較廣泛的10-MDP酸性單體,參考單體滲透測試中透過人類牙本質的濃度配置溶液來培養細胞,利用Alamar Blue assay、LDH assay以及免疫螢光染色觀察此單體對細胞活性的影響。 研究結果 一、 聚氨酯泡棉在與牙本質在相同的厚度下滲出的HEMA濃度無顯著差異。 二、 不論使用1 mm或0.5 mm的聚氨酯泡棉與牙本質,聚合完成的牙科黏著劑滲透過屏障的物質對細胞活性的影響在1、4、7天皆無顯著差異。 三、 在Alamar Blue實驗中觀察濃度400 μM的10-MDP組別第4、7天結果顯示對細胞具有抑制生長的影響;在LDH實驗中則是觀察到濃度大於50 μM的組別,在第1、4天隨著10-MDP濃度提升而造成LDH明顯上升,到第7天LDH則無顯著差異。 結論 以本實驗HEMA滲出濃度結果,以及屏障實驗對細胞影響觀察,推測聚氨酯泡棉可以在屏障實驗中作為牙本質的替代品;觀察本實驗結果10-MDP濃度400 μM到第7天仍會對細胞有顯著的生長影響,LDH數值在第1、4天較控制組顯著,但是到第7天則沒有顯著差異。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | Introduction Dental adhesives are widely used in the procedure of dental treatment, such as composite resin filling, inlay/onlay or veneer treatment, etc. The side effect such as postoperative sensitivity are often reported. If the position of cavity/restorations are close to the pulp, it may cause pulpitis even pulp tissue necrosis. The reasons of side effects may include incomplete removal of infected dentin, cellular toxicity of unpolymerized resin monomers, force of shrinkage during resin polymerization, and occlusal disturbance. Whether the cytotoxicity of resin monomer is reasonable for pulp cell damage, numbers of studies approved that the monomer concentration determines the degree of toxicity to cells. In order to measure the concentration of monomers eluted into the pulp tissue through dentin, various barrier designs was investigated in many experiments. But the results are often limited by the variations of the barrier material. Human or animal dentin is usually used as the barrier material in most experiments. Its permeability will vary with factors such as the age of the organism itself, dietary habits, dental caries or variations between individuals, which in turn affects the experimental results. One of the aims of the study was to find a stable and recognized material to replace dentin as a standardized barrier test material. 10-MDP monomers are widely used in clinical practice nowadays, especially in self-etching dental adhesive systems and dual cure resin cements. However, there are few studies on the influence of 10-MDP to human dental pulp cells compared with other resin monomers. Therefore, the second part of this study was to use the exuded concentration of 10-MDP measured from the HPLC results mentioned above. To observe the influence of 10-MDP to dental pulp cells. Research goal 1. Measurement of exuded monomer concentration: Dentin and polyurethane foam with thickness of 0.5 mm and 1 mm as barrier were used. Two dental adhesives (3M Single Bond Universal Adhesive, Ivoclar Tetric-N Bond Universal Adhesive) were applied on the material according to the manufacturer's instructions. Eluted monomers were collected at six time points of 15mins, 30mins, 1hr, 8hr, 24hr, and 48hr, and the concentration was measured by high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). 2. Cell viability test: The test samples were described above. After sample preparation, it was placed on the insert of 24-well transwell, and then cultured with DPSC. The Alamar Blue assay was used to observe the cell viability at Day 1, Day 4 and Day 7. 3. To investigate the cytotoxicity of 10-MDP, 25 μM, 50 μM, 100 μM, 200 μM, 400 μM of 10-MDP solution were cultured with DPSC. Alamar Blue assay, LDH assay and immunofluorescence staining were utilize to observe the influences of this monomer to dental pulp cells. Result 1. There was no significant difference in the concentration of HEMA exuded from polyurethane foam and dentin at the same thickness. 2. Whether using polyurethane foam or dentin at thickness of 1 mm or 0.5 mm, the effects of the polymerized dental adhesive permeating the barrier to cell viability were no significant difference at 1, 4, and 7 days. 3. In the Alamar Blue experiment, the concentration of 400 μM 10-MDP was cytotoxic on cell growth on the 4th and 7th day. The higher LDH was measured when the 10-MDP concentration was higher than 50 μM on day 1 and day 4. However, there was no significant difference on day 7. Conclusion Based on the results of the HEMA exuded concentration in this experiment and the effect of bonding agents through the barrier test to cells. It is reliable that polyurethane foam can be used as a substitute for dentin in dentin barrier test. It was observed that 10-MDP concentration of 400 μM still had significant effect on the growth of cells on the 7th day. The LDH of 400 μM 10-MDP was significantly higher than control group on the 1st and 4th days, but there was no significant difference on the 7th day. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2023-03-19T22:13:25Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 U0001-2609202210382900.pdf: 6416503 bytes, checksum: e56937ecd31e1a5135e195f902f7020e (MD5) Previous issue date: 2022 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 口試委員會審定書 I 中文摘要 II Abstract V 目錄 VIII 圖目錄 XI 表目錄 XIII 第一章 緒論 1 第二章 文獻回顧 2 2.1牙科黏著系統 2 2.1.1 牙科黏著系統的分類 2 2.1.2 牙科黏著劑的成分 3 2.1.3 常見的牙科樹脂單體 4 2.2 牙體復形治療的生物影響 6 2.2.2 樹脂單體的生物影響 6 2.2.3材料生物相容性檢測 9 第三章 研究動機與目的 12 3.1研究動機暨文獻回顧 12 3.1.1 牛牙本質 12 3.1.2 聚氨酯泡棉(Polyurethane Foam, Sawbones®) 14 3.2 研究目的 16 第四章 實驗材料及方法 17 4.1 實驗材料與製備 17 4.1.1 實驗材料 17 4.1.2 試片製備 17 4.2 實驗細胞及培養環境 19 4.2.1 人類牙髓細胞(Dental Pulp Stem Cell) 19 4.2.2 細胞培養環境 20 4.3實驗步驟 20 4.3.1 黏著系統使用方式及使用量 20 4.3.2牙科黏著劑單體滲透實驗 21 4.3.3 牙科黏著劑屏障實驗 23 4.3.4 10-MDP單體對細胞毒性測試 27 4.3.5 統計分析 30 第五章 實驗結果 31 5.1牙科黏著劑單體滲透實驗 31 5.1.1 滲透單體濃度的測量 31 5.1.2 HEMA滲透濃度 32 5.1.3 10-MDP滲透濃度 35 5.1.4 聚氨酯泡棉與牙本質滲透趨勢比較 36 5.2牙科黏著劑屏障實驗 39 5.2.1 細胞活性測試(Alamar Blue assay) 39 5.2.2 倒立式相位差顯微鏡拍攝各組別不同時間下的細胞狀態 42 5.3 10-MDP單體對細胞毒性測試 52 5.3.1 Alamar Blue assay 52 5.3.2 Alamar Blue assay實驗中各組別不同時間下的細胞狀態 53 5.3.3 LDH assay Day1 57 5.3.4 LDH assay Day4 58 5.3.5 LDH assay Day7 59 5.3.6 免疫螢光染色 200X Day1 60 5.3.7 免疫螢光染色 200X Day4 61 5.3.8 免疫螢光染色 200X Day7 62 第六章 討論 63 6.1牙科黏著劑單體滲透實驗 63 6.1.1 10-MDP單體滲透過屏障材料的濃度 63 6.1.2 HEMA單體滲透過屏障材料的濃度 64 6.1.3 聚氨酯泡棉與牙本質材料滲透比較 67 6.2牙科黏著劑屏障實驗 69 6.2.1 Alamar Blue assay數據結果 69 6.2.2 顯微鏡觀察細胞狀態 71 6.3 10-MDP單體對細胞毒性測試 72 6.3.1 Alamar Blue assay及LDH assay數據討論 73 第七章 結論與未來研究方向 76 7.1結論 76 7.1.1牙科黏著劑單體滲透實驗 76 7.1.2 牙科黏著劑屏障實驗 76 7.1.3 10-MDP單體對細胞毒性測試 77 7.2 未來研究方向 77 參考文獻 78 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 單瓶式牙科黏著劑透過人類牙本質及聚氨酯泡棉屏障實驗對單體濃度與生物相容性之探討 | zh_TW |
dc.title | The leached-out monomer concentration and biocompatibility of one-bottled adhesives by barrier test using human dentin and polyurethane | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 110-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 陳敏慧(Min-Huey Chen),陳克恭(Ker-Kong Chen) | |
dc.subject.keyword | 甲基丙烯酸羥乙酯,10-MDP,牙本質屏障測試,牙科黏著劑,聚氨酯泡棉, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | (Hydroxyethyl)methacrylate,10-MDP,dentin barrier test,dental bonding agent,Polyurethane Foam, | en |
dc.relation.page | 82 | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202204049 | |
dc.rights.note | 同意授權(限校園內公開) | |
dc.date.accepted | 2022-09-26 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 醫學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 臨床牙醫學研究所 | zh_TW |
dc.date.embargo-lift | 2022-10-13 | - |
顯示於系所單位: | 臨床牙醫學研究所 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
U0001-2609202210382900.pdf 授權僅限NTU校內IP使用(校園外請利用VPN校外連線服務) | 6.27 MB | Adobe PDF | 檢視/開啟 |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。