Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

ÀÌ»óÄ¡¾Æ ¹ß»ýºóµµ¿¡ °üÇÑ Åë°èÇÐÀû ¿¬±¸

TBE STATISTICAL STUDY OF PREVALENCE OF DENTAL ANOMALIES

´ëÇѼҾÆÄ¡°úÇÐȸÁö 1985³â 12±Ç 1È£ p.175 ~ 190
ÀÌÇõ, Á¤Àç¿ë,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
ÀÌÇõ (  ) - ¿¬¼¼´ëÇб³
Á¤Àç¿ë (  ) - ¿¬¼¼´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ ¼Ò¾ÆÄ¡°úÇб³½Ç

Abstract

°á·Ð
1983³â 7¿ùºÎÅÍ 1985³â 6¿ù±îÁö ¿¬¼¼´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ Ä¡°úº´¿ø ¼Ò¾ÆÄ¡°ú¿¡ ³»¿øÇÑ ¸¸2¼¼
¿¡¼­ 14¼¼¹Ì¸¸ÀÇ ³²ÀÚ 788¸í, ¿©ÀÚ 689¸í ÃÑ 1,477¸íÀ» ´ë»óÀ¸·Î ÀÌ»óÄ¡¾ÆÀÇ ¹ß»ýºóµµ¸¦ ÀÓ
»ó °Ë»ç¿Í ¹æ»ç¼± »çÁø °üÂû ¹× Åë°èÇÐÀû ºÐ¼®À¸·Î Á¶»çÇÑ °á°ú ´ÙÀ½ÀÇ °á·ÐÀ» ¾ò¾ú´Ù.
1. 1,477¸íÀÇ ÇÇ°ËÀÚ Áß 308¸íÀÌ ÀÌ»ó Ä¡¾Æ¸¦ ³ªÅ¸³ÂÀ¸¸ç °¢ ÀÌ»ó Ä¡¾ÆÀÇ ¹ß»ýºóµµ´Â °á¼Õ
Ä¡°¡ 7.92%, °úÀ×Ä¡°¡ 7.58%, À¯ÇÕÄ¡ ¹× ½Ö»ýÄ¡°¡ 3.39%, Ä¡°ü ÇüÅ ÀÌ»óÄ¡¾Æ°¡ 2.57%,
taurodontismÀÌ 1.76%, ¸¸°îÄ¡°¡ 0.41%, Ä¡³»Ä¡°¡ 0.34%, À§Ä¡ ÀÌ»óÄ¡¾Æ°¡ 0.41%, ¹ý¶ûÁú
¹ß»ýºÎÀü°ú »ó¾ÆÁú ¹ß»ýºÎÀüÀº 0.20%·Î ³ªÅ¸³µ´Ù.
2. °¢ ÀÌ»ó Ä¡¾Æ Áý´Ü »ó°ü°ü°è´Â Àü¹ÝÀûÀ¸·Î ¸Å¿ì ¾àÇÏ°Ô ³ªÅ¸³µÀ¸¸ç, ±×Áß ºñ±³Àû ³ôÀº
»ó°ü°ü°è¸¦ º¸ÀÎ °ÍÀº ¿¬·É°ú Ä¡³»Ä¡ÀÇ ¾àÇÑ ¼ø»ó°ü°è °á¼ÕÄ¡¿Í °úÀ×Ä¡ »çÀÌÀÇ ¾àÇÑ ¿ª»ó°ü
°ü°è¿´´Ù. »ó°ü°è¼ö´Â ³²³à¿¡¼­ Â÷À̸¦ º¸¿´´Ù.
3. °¢ ÀÌ»ó Ä¡¾Æ Áý´ÜÀÇ ¼ºº°Â÷ÀÌ´Â °á¼ÕÄ¡, °úÀ×Ä¡, taurodontism¿¡¼­ ³ªÅ¸³µÀ¸¸ç, °á¼ÕÄ¡
¿Í taurodontismÀº ¿©ÀÚ¿¡¼­, °úÀ×Ä¡´Â ³²ÀÚ¿¡¼­ È£¹ßÇÏ¿´´Ù.
4. °á¼ÕÄ¡´Â ÇÏ¾Ç À¯ÃøÀýÄ¡¿Í ÇÏ¾Ç ÃøÀýÄ¡¿¡¼­ °¢°¢ Ãִٺ󵵸¦ º¸¿´À¸¸ç, Á¿ìÃø°ú »óÇÏ
¾Ç¿¡¼­ÀÇ À¯ÀÇÂ÷¸¦ º¸¿©, ¿ìÃø°ú ÇϾǿ¡¼­ ºó¹ßÇÏ¿© ³ªÅ¸³µ´Ù.
5. °úÀ×Ä¡´Â Á¤ÁߺÎÀ§ÀÇ Á¤ÁßÄ¡, Á¤»óÀ§ÀÇ ¸ÍÃâ¾ç»ó°ú ¹Ì¸ÍÃâ »óÅ°¡ ´ëºÎºÐÀ̾úÀ¸¸ç, °Å
ÀÇ »ó¾Ç¿¡¼­ ¹ßÇöµÇ¾ú°í, Á¿ìÃø À¯ÀÇÂ÷´Â ¾ø¾ú´Ù.
6. À¯ÇÕÀ¯Ä¡ Á¸Àç½Ã, °è½Â ¿µ±¸Ä¡ÀÇ 47.06%¿¡¼­ °á¼ÕÀ» º¸¿´±³, °è½Â ¿µ±¸Ä¡ À¯ÇÕÀº
5.80%À̸ç, ÇÏ¾Ç ¿ìÃø À¯ÃøÀýÄ¡¿Í À¯°ßÄ¡ÀÇ À¯ÇÕÀÌ ÃÖ´Ù ºóµµ¸¦ ³ªÅ¸³Â°í, ¿ìÃø°ú ÇϾǿ¡¼­
³ôÀº ºñÀ²À» º¸¿´´Ù.
#ÃÊ·Ï#
This study was .designed to find out the prevalence of dental anomalies The clinical
and roentgenographic examination was undertaken of 1,477 children at age from 2 to 13
years and statistic analysis was made.
The results were as follows:
1. Among the examined patients, 308 patients showed dental anomalies. The
prevalences of individual dental anomalies were as follows; congenitally missing teeth;
7.92%, supernumerary teeth; 7.58%, fused and geminated teeth; 3.39%, anomalies of
crown shape: 2.57%, taurodontism; 1.76% dens invaginatus: 0.34%, dilacerated teeth;
0.41%, malposed teeth; 0.41%, amelogeaesis imperfecte and dentinogenesis imperfecta;
0.2%.
2. Between the groups with individual dental anomalies what showed significant
correlation were as follows; Between age and dens invaginatus was positive weak
correlation, congenitally missing teeth and supernumerary teeth was negative weak
correlation. And the correlation chefficencies between male and female showed
differences.
3. The sexual differences of the individual dental anomalies appeared in congenitally
missing teeth, supernumerary teeth and taurodontism. While the congenitally missing
teeth and taurodontism showed greater rate of prevalence in female, supernumerary teeth
in male.
4. In congenitally missing teeth the mandibular decidouous lateral incisor showed the
highest rate of the prevalence in deciduous dentition, while mandibular lateral incisor in
permanent dentition.
5. Most supernumerary teeth were mesiodens of median area in maxilla and showed
no statistical difference between right and left side. Generally, the eruption pattem of
that teeth was normal position and unerupted state.
6. In the case with deciduous fused teeth, the prevalence of succeeding permanent
congenitally missing teeth was 47.06%, while that of succeeding permanent fussd teeth
was 5.80%. And the highest rate of the prevalence appeared in fusion of mandibular
right deciduous lateral incisor and canine. Also, in mandible and right side, appeared
greater rate of prevalence.

Å°¿öµå

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

 

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

KCI