Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

µÎºÎ ¹æ»ç¼± ±Ô°Ý»çÁøÀ» ÀÌ¿ëÇÑ 3Â÷¿ø °èÃø ½Ã½ºÅÛÀÇ °³¹ß

A DEVELOPMENT OF 3 DIMENSIONAL CEPHALOMETRIC ANALYSIS SYSTEM

´ëÇѱ¸°­¾Ç¾È¸é¿Ü°úÇÐȸÁö 1999³â 25±Ç 2È£ p.81 ~ 90
¹éÁö·É, ±è¹®Á¤, ±èÁ¾¹è,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
¹éÁö·É (  ) - °æºÏ´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ ±¸°­¾Ç¾È¸é¿Ü°úÇб³½Ç
±è¹®Á¤ (  ) - °æºÏ´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ ±¸°­¾Ç¾È¸é¿Ü°úÇб³½Ç
±èÁ¾¹è (  ) - °è¸í´ëÇб³ ÀÇ°ú´ëÇÐ Ä¡°ú

Abstract

¿ä¾à
µÎºÎ ¹æ»ç¼± ±Ô°Ý»çÁøÀ» ÀÌ¿ëÇÑ 3Â÷¿ø °èÃø ½Ã½ºÅÛÀ» ÀÚü °³¹ßÇÏ¿© 3Â÷¿øÀûÀÎ »óÇϾǰñ
ÀÇ ÇüŸ¦ µ¿ÀÏ ÁÂÇ¥°è·Î ºñ±³ÇÏ¿© ÀÓ»óÀûÀ¸·Î ¸¸Á·½º·¯¿î Á¤µµ¸¦ ¾òÀ» ¼ö ÀÖµµ·Ï ´Ù¼¸ °³
ÀÇ °ÇÁ¶µÎ°³°ñ¿¡ Á÷°æ ¾à 0.38¡¾05§®ÀÇ ±Ý¼Ó±¸¸¦ Á¢Âø½ÃÅ°°í °ÇÁ¶µÎ°³°ñÀÇ ÀÚ¼¼¸¦ º¯È­½ÃÄÑ
Á¤¸ð ¹× Ãø¸ð µÎºÎ ¹æ»ç¼± »çÁøÀ» ÃÔ¿µÇÑ ÈÄ ÀÚü ¿ÀÂ÷ ºÐ¼®°ú °¢°¢ ÃÔ¿µµÈ ÇÑ ½ÖÀÇ Á¤¸ð
¹× Ãø¸ð µÎºÎ ¹æ»ç¼± »çÁøÀ» ÇÑ°³ÀÇ »ïÂ÷¿øÀû ¿µ»óÀ¸·Î ±¸ÃàµÈ 3Â÷¿ø °èÃøÄ¡¿Í µÎºÎ ¹æ»ç¼±
»çÁø»óÀÇ °èÃøÄ¡ ¹× ½Ç°èÃøÄ¡¸¦ °¢°¢ ºñ±³ÇÏ¿© ´ÙÀ½°ú °°Àº °á°ú¸¦ ¾ò¾ú´Ù.
1. ¹æ»ç¼± ÃÔ¿µ½ÃÀÇ µÎºÎ À§Ä¡ÀÇ º¯È­¿¡ µû¸¥ ¿ÀÂ÷ÀÇ °³ÀÔ ¾øÀÌ ¼ø¼öÇÑ ¿ÀÂ÷¸¦ ÃøÁ¤ÇÑ °á
°ú Á¤¸ð¿Í Ãø¸ð µÎºÎ ¹æ»ç¼± »çÁø¿¡¼­ ¸ðµÎ 1§® ÀÌÇÏÀÇ ¿ÀÂ÷¸¦ º¸¿´À¸¸ç, ¿ÀÂ÷ÀÇ ¹üÀ§´Â Á¤
¸ð ¹× Ãø¸ð µÎºÎ ¹æ»ç¼± »çÁøÀÇ °æ¿ì °¢°¢ 0.11-0.73§®, 0.12-0.57§®¿´´Ù(p<0.05).
2. Ãø¸ð ¹× Á¤¸ð µÎºÎ ¹æ»ç¼± »çÁø¿¡¼­ ¾ò¾îÁø ÁÂÇ¥°ªÀ¸·Î »êÃâÇÑ 3Â÷¿ø °èÃøÄ¡¿¡¼­´Â ½Ç
ÇèÀÚÀÇ ¿À·ù(intra-examiner vias)°¡ 90°³ °èÃø ¿ä¼Ò Áß 7°³(7.6%)¿¡¼­¸¸ À¯ÀÇÇÑ ¿ÀÂ÷°¡ ³ª
Ÿ³µÀ¸¸ç, x, y, z ÁÂÇ¥°£ÀÇ Æò±ÕÀûÀÎ ÆíÂ÷(error of single measurements)´Â °¢°¢ 0.04¡¾0.21
§®, 0.01 ¡¾0.01§®, 0.08¡¾0.08§®·Î ³ªÅ¸³µ´Ù.
3. µ¿ÀÏ °ÇÁ¶ µÎ°³ °ñ»ó¿¡¼­ 14°¡Áö °èÃø °Å¸®¸¦ ½ÇÃøÇÑ °á°ú Åë°èÀûÀ¸·Î À¯ÀÇÇÑ Â÷ÀÌ°¡
¾ø¾úÀ¸¸ç (p>0.01), Æò±Õ 0.16¡¾0.22§®ÀÇ Â÷À̸¦ °¡Áö°í ÀÖ¾ú´Ù. °¡Àå Å« ÆíÂ÷¸¦ ³ªÅ¸³½
L-UMC, L-UIC°£ÀÇ °Å¸®ÀÇ °æ¿ì0.43¡¾0.54§®ÀÇ Â÷À̸¦ º¸¿´´Ù.
4. 3Â÷¿ø °èÃøÄ¡¿Í ½Ç °èÃøÄ¡¿ÍÀÇ Â÷ÀÌ¿¡¼­ 14°³ Ç׸ñ Áß 6°³ Ç׸ñÀº Ãà¼ÒµÇ¾ú°í 8°³ Ç×
¸ñÀº È®´ëµÇ¾î ³ªÅ¸³µÀ¸¸ç(Æò±Õ Â÷ÀÌ 0.13¡¾1.54MmÀÇ Â÷ÀÌ), ÀÌ Áß L-Co, R-Co°¡ 2.59¡¾
3.00§®ÀÇ Â÷ÀÌ·Î °¡Àå Å©°Ô È®´ëµÇ¾î ³ªÅ¸³µ´Ù. ¹éºÐÀ²·Î °è»êÇÑ °á°ú 100.74¡¾3.92% È®´ëÀ²
À» º¸¿´À¸¸ç ½ÇÃøº¸´Ù °¡Àå Ãà¼ÒµÇ¾î ³ªÅ¸³­ Ç׸ñÀº ANS, R-Or °£ÀÇ °Å¸®(97.75¡¾3.11%)
¿´À¸¸ç, °¡Àå È®´ëµÇ¾î ³ªÅ¸³­ Ç׸ñÀº L-UM, L-UIC°£ °Å¸®(106.59¡¾20.33%)¿´´Ù.
5. ½ÇÃøÄ¡¿Í 2Â÷¿øÀû µÎºÎ ¹æ»ç¼± °èÃøÄ¡ »çÀÌ¿¡´Â ´Ù¾çÇÑ Á¤µµÀÇ Â÷ÀÌ°¡ ÀÖ¾úÀ¸¸ç Çʸ§
¸é°ú ÆòÇàÇÏÁö ¾Ê´Â ½Ã»ó¸é¿¡ ³õÀÎ °èÃø °Å¸® ÃøÁ¤¿¡¼­ Ãà¼Ò°¡ µÎµå·¯Á³´Ù. Çʸ§°ú °ÇÁ¶µÎ
°³°ñ °¢ °èÃøÁ¡°£ÀÇ °Å¸®´Â Ç׸ñ¿¡ µû¶ó ´Þ¶úÀ¸¸ç À̸¦3Â÷¿øÀû °èÃøÄ¡¿Í ºñ±³ÇÏ¿´À» ¶§ ÈÎ
¾À ±× ¿ÀÂ÷°¡ Å« °ÍÀ» ¾Ë ¼ö ÀÖ¾ú´Ù.
À̸¦ Á¾ÇÕÇÒ ¶§ 3Â÷¿ø °èÃøÄ¡ÀÇ Á¤È®µµ´Â ¹æ»ç¼± »çÁøÀÇ ÀçÇö¼ºÀÌ º¸ÀåµÇ¾îÁú °æ¿ì Á¤¸ð,
Ãø¸ð µÎºÎ ¹æ»ç¼± »çÁø ÁßÀÇ ÁÂÇ¥Á¡À» ÀνÄÇÏ´Â Á¤È®µµ¿¡ Á¿ìµÈ´Ù°í ÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Ù. Ãø¸ð ¹×
Á¤¸ð µÎºÎ ¹æ»ç¼± »çÁø¿¡¼­ Æǵ¶ÀÌ ¾î·Á¿î ÁÂÇ¥Á¡ÀÇ ¼±ÅÃÀº 3Â÷¿øÀûÀÎ ÁÂÇ¥°ªÀÇ ¿À·ù·Î ³ª
Ÿ³ª°Ô µÇ±â ¶§¹®¿¡ ÃæºÐÇÑ ÇغÎÇÐÀûÀÎ Áö½ÄÀ¸·Î 2Â÷¿øÀûÀÎ µÎºÎ ¹æ»ç¼± »çÁøÀ» Æ®·¹À̽ÌÇÑ
´Ù¸é ±¸°­¾Ç¾È¸é ¿µ¿ª¿¡¼­ ÀÌ¿ëµÉ ¼ö ÀÖ´Â Á¤µµÀÇ Á¤È®µµ Áï, ¼úÀü ¼úÈÄ ºñ±³ Æò°¡µîÀÇ °æ
¿ì¿¡ ÃæºÐÈ÷ ÀÌ¿ëµÇ¾î Áú ¼ö ÀÖÀ» °ÍÀ¸·Î »ç·áµÈ´Ù.

Diagnosis of dentofacial deformity needs three dimensional comprehensive
understanding of craniofacial skeleton. Eventhough three dimensional computerized
tomogram has been developed, the quantified measurement analysis is merely depend on
cephalomeric analysis. In our pilot study using the ordinary cephalometric radiogram
which is commonly used in clinical basis, we tried to reconstruct three dimensional
coordinates from frontal and lateral cephalogram taken from five dry skulls attached
with small metal ball. To evaluate the reproducibility of the cephalogram, intra-examiner
error was measured and compared with the three dimensional coordinates. Fourteen
linear measurement of dry skull and three dimensional value has been compared.
The results were as follows;
1. The intra-examiner error of two dimensional cephalogram showed a similar
variation below 1 mm in frontal and lateral cephalogram. The error ranged from
0.11-0.13§® in the case of frontal cephalometrics and 0.12-0.57§® for lateral
cephalometrics. Three dimensional coordinates showed relatively high reproducibility
except 7 coordinates out of 90(7.8%). The average error of the single measurement of x,
y, z point shown to be 0.04¡¾0.21§® 0.01¡¾0.01§®, 0.08¡¾0.08§®.
2. Compare the 14 linear measurement of dry skull and three dimensional
measurement, the mean difference was 0.13¡¾1.54§®, ranging from 2.59¡¾3.00§®(L-Co,
R-Co) to 0.01¡¾0.38(ANS, L-Or). From the result by taking real value percentage rate
by 3 dimensional measuring value, the mean value was 100.74¡¾3.92% and the
measurement which showed the most shortening compared with the real value was the
distance between R-Or and ANS (97.75¡¾3.11%) and the most enlarged measurement
was the distance between L-VMC, L-VIC(106.59¡¾20.33%).
3. However, compare the real value and two dimensional cephalometric radiograph,
difference between the two is significant degree which hinder the use of two
dimensional measurement in clinical situation. This potential pitfall of the cephalogram
might be overcome by using our three dimensional coordinate system.
If the reproducibility of the frontal and lateral cephalogram is achieved, major concern
related to the accuracy of three dimensional measurement is correct detection of
anatomical landmark. Further investigation of anatomical investigation of facial skeleton
will make these system more accurate and popular in clinical field.

Å°¿öµå

3 dimensional analysis; Dilot study;

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

  

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

KCI
KoreaMed