Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

The Chewing Efficiency of Occlusal Stabilization Appliances by Anatomy of the Occlusal Surface

´ëÇѱ¸°­³»°úÇÐȸÁö 2005³â 30±Ç 3È£ p.361 ~ 373
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
ÀÓ¿µ°ü ÃÖÃæÈ£/±èÀçÇü/ÀÌÁ¾¿í/±èº´±¹

Abstract

±³ÇÕÀåÄ¡¿ä¹ýÀº ÃøµÎÇϾÇÀå¾Ö ȯÀÚÀÇ Áõ»ó°ú ¡Èĸ¦ °¨¼Ò½ÃÅ°´Âµ¥ ¸Å¿ì È¿°úÀûÀÎ ¹æ¹ýÀ¸·Î ¹àÇôÁ® ÀÖ´Ù. ±³ÇÕÀåÄ¡ÀÇ ÀúÀÛÈ¿À²¿¡ °üÇÑ º¸°í´Â ¾ÆÁ÷ ¾ø´Â ½ÇÁ¤ÀÌ´Ù. ÀÌ ¿¬±¸ÀÇ ¸ñÀûÀº Á¤»óÀο¡¼­ ½ÇÇèÀûÀ¸·Î ÀÚ¿¬Ä¡¿­°ú ºñ±³ÇÑ ±³ÇÕ¾ÈÁ¤ÀåÄ¡ÀÇ ÀúÀÛ È¿À²À» Á¶»çÇÏ°í, °³¼±µÈ ÀúÀÛ È¿À²À» °¡Áø º¯ÇüµÈ ±³ÇÕ¾ÈÁ¤ÀåÄ¡¸¦ °³¹ßÇÏ´Â °ÍÀ̾ú´Ù.
¿­ÇѸíÀÇ ¿¬±¸´ë»óÀÚ(Æò±Õ ¿¬·É 25.3¼¼, ¿¬·É ¹üÀ§ 23-33¼¼)°¡ ½ÇÇè¿¡ Âü¿©Çß´Ù. ÀÌ Áß ³²ÀÚ´Â 6¸í, ¿©ÀÚ´Â 5¸íÀ̾ú´Ù. À̵éÀº ¿ÏÀüÇϰųª °ÅÀÇ ¿ÏÀüÇÑ ÀÚ¿¬Ä¡¿­À» °¡Áö°í ÀÖ°í ÃøµÎÇϾÇÀå¾ÖÀÇ Áõ»ó°ú ¡ÈÄ°¡ ¾ø´Â °Ç°­ÇÑ »ç¶÷µéÀ̾ú´Ù. ±âÁ¸ÀÇ ÆíÆòÇÑ ±³ÇÕ¸éÀÌ ÀÖ´Â »ó¾Ç ±³ÇÕ¾ÈÁ¤ÀåÄ¡(FSA) ¹× ±³Çո鿡 ºÎ°¡ÀûÀ¸·Î ÇغÎÇÐÀûÀÎ ±¸Á¶°¡ ÀÖ´Â º¯ÇüµÈ ±³ÇÕ¾ÈÁ¤ÀåÄ¡(ASA)ÀÇ 2Á¾ÀÇ ±³ÇÕÀåÄ¡¸¦ °¢ ´ë»óÀÚ¸¶´Ù Á¦ÀÛÇÏ¿´´Ù. ÀÚ¿¬Ä¡¿­, ASA ¹× FSAÀÇ 3°¡Áö ÀúÀÛ Á¶°Ç¿¡¼­ ¿¬±¸´ë»óÀÚµéÀÌ ½ÃÇè½ÄÇ°À¸·Î ¼±ÅÃµÈ ¶¥ÄáÀ» ÀúÀÛÇϵµ·Ï ÇÏ¿´´Ù. 1ºÐ°£ÀÇ ÀúÀ۱Ⱓ µ¿¾È ÀúÀÛÁÖ±â ȸ¼ö¸¦ ¼¼¾ú´Ù. ÀúÀÛµÈ ¶¥Äá ½Ä±«¸¦ ȸ¼öÇÏ°í Á¶Á÷°¨ ºÐ¼®À» ÅëÇØ °æµµ¸¦ ÃøÁ¤ÇÏ¿´´Ù. °æµµ¿Í ÀúÀÛÁÖ±â ȸ¼ö¿¡ ´ëÇÏ¿© Åë°èºÐ¼®À» ½ÃÇàÇÏ¿´À¸¸ç, ´ÙÀ½°ú °°Àº °á°ú¸¦ ¾ò¾ú´Ù.
1. FSAÀÇ ÀúÀÛÈ¿À²Àº ÀÚ¿¬Ä¡¿­ÀÇ 38.6%¿¡ ÇØ´çÇÏ¿´´Ù. ASAÀÇ ÀúÀÛÈ¿À²Àº ÀÚ¿¬Ä¡¿­ÀÇ 78.2%¿¡ ÇØ´çÇÏ¿´´Ù.
2. ÀÚ¿¬Ä¡¿­ÀÇ ÀúÀÛÁ¶°Ç¿¡¼­ÀÇ ÀúÀÛÁÖ±â ȸ¼ö´Â ÃÊ´ç 1.5ȸ·Î ÃøÁ¤µÇ¾úÀ¸¸ç, ÀÌ´Â ASA¿Í FSAÀÇ Á¶°Ç¿¡¼­ ¾à 90%·Î °¨¼ÒµÇ¾ú´Ù.
ÀÌ·¯ÇÑ °á°ú´Â ASA°¡ ÃøµÎÇϾÇÀå¾Ö¿¡¼­ÀÇ Ä¡·áÈ¿°ú»Ó¸¸ ¾Æ´Ï¶ó Çâ»óµÈ ÀúÀÛ±â´ÉÀ» ¼öÇàÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖµµ·Ï ÇÔÀ» º¸¿©ÁÖ¾ú´Ù. TMD ȯÀÚÀÇ Ä¡·á¿¡ ASAÀÇ ÀÓ»óÀû »ç¿ëÀ» ±àÁ¤ÀûÀ¸·Î °í·ÁÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖÀ» °ÍÀÌ´Ù.

Occlusal appliance therapy has been proven to be very useful and effective in reducing signs and symptoms of patients with TMD. However, there are no reports about the masticatory efficiency of the occlusal appliance. The purpose of this study was, first, to investigate the masticatory efficiency of the conventional stabilization appliance experimentally in normal healthy subjects, by comparing it with that of their natural dentition; and, second, to develop a modified stabilization appliance as an attempt to increase masticatory efficiency.
Eleven subjects (mean age 25.3 years, range from 23 to 33) participated in this study. Six were men and five were women. They were healthy and had complete or near¡ªcomplete natural dentition, and did not present with signs or symptoms of TMD.
Two kinds of occlusal appliances¡ªthe conventional flat maxillary stabilization appliance (i.e., FSA) and a modified maxillary stabilization appliance with additional anatomic structures on its occlusal surface (i.e., ASA)¡ªwere made for every subject. Subjects chewed peanuts that were selected as a food to test the three masticatory conditions of the natural dentition, the ASA, and the FSA. The number of chewing strokes was counted during each 1-minute chewing period. Chewed peanut boluses were recovered and their hardness was measured by texture analysis. Statistical tests were performed. The following results were obtained.
1. The masticatory efficiency of the FSA was 38.6 percent that of the natural dentition. The efficiency of the ASA was 78.2 percent that of the natural dentition.
2. The number of chewing strokes in the natural dentition condition was measured to be 1.5 strokes per second. It decreased to 90 percent in the ASA and FSA conditions.
These results indicate that the ASA could serve an improved masticatory capacity as well as its therapeutic effects in TMD. A clinical application of the ASA should be considered to extend the management of TMD patients.

Å°¿öµå

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

  

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

KCI