Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

¾È¸ðÀÇ ¼ºÀåÀ¯Çü¿¡ µû¸¥ °æºÎ°ßÀÎ Çìµå±â¾îÀÇ È¿°ú¿¡ ´ëÇÑ µÎºÎ¹æ»ç¼±°èÃøÇÐÀû ¿¬±¸

Cephalometric study of the effect of cervical pull headgear based on facial growth patterns

Korean Journal of Orthodontics 1999³â 29±Ç 4È£ p.503 ~ 510
°­ÀºÇÏ, ÀåÁ¾¾ð,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
°­ÀºÇÏ (  ) - ¼º±Õ°ü´ëÇб³ ÀÇ°ú´ëÇÐ Ä¡°úÇб³½Ç
ÀåÁ¾¾ð (  ) - »ï¼ºÀÇ·á¿ø Ä¡°úÁø·áºÎ±³Á¤°ú

Abstract

ÀÌ ¿¬±¸ÀÇ ¸ñÀûÀº ¥±±Þ ºÎÁ¤±³ÇÕÀÇ Ä¡·á¸¦ À§ÇØ °æºÎ°ßÀÎ Çìµå±â¾î(cervical pull
headgear)¸¦ »ç¿ëÇÒ ¶§, Ä¡·á¿¡ ºÒ¸®ÇÑ ¿äÀÎÀ¸·Î ÀÛ¿ëÇÑ´Ù°í ¾ð±ÞµÇ´Â È¿°úµéÀÌ ½ÇÁ¦·Î ¹ß
ÇöµÇ´ÂÁöÀÇ ¿©ºÎ¿Í ¾È¸ðÀÇ ¼ºÁ¤À¯Çü¿¡ µû¶ó ±× Â÷ÀÌ°¡ Á¸ÀçÇÏ´ÂÁö¸¦ ¾Ë¾Æº¸°íÀÚ ÇÔ¿¡ ÀÖ´Ù.
À̸¦ À§Çؼ­ »ï¼º¼­¿ïº´¿ø Ä¡°ú±³Á¤°ú¿¡¼­ ¥±±Þ ºÎÁ¤±³ÇÕÀ¸·Î Áø´ÜµÇ¾î °æºÎ°ßÀÎ Çìµå±â¾î
·Î Ä¡·á¹ÞÀº ȯÀÚÁß, ¼ºÀå±â¿¡ ÀÖÀ¸¸é¼­ ºñ¹ßÄ¡ Ä¡·á¸¦ ¹ÞÀº ȯÀÚ¸¦ ¿¬±¸´ë»óÀ¸·Î ¼±º°ÇÏ¿´
´Ù. ±×¸®°í ¿¬±¸´ë»óÀ» 'Èľȸé/Àü¾È¸é °í°æºñ'¿¡ µû¶ó ¼öÁ÷¼ºÀ屺°ú ¼öÆò¼ºÀ屺À¸·Î ºÐ·ùÇÏ
¿´´Ù. ¼öÁ÷¼ºÀ屺 15¸í(³²ÀÚ 5¸í, ¿©ÀÚ 10¸í)°ú ¼öÆò¼ºÀ屺 11¸í(³²ÀÚ 4¸í, ¿©ÀÚ 7¸í)ÀÇ Ä¡·á
Àü, ÈÄÀÇ µÎºÎ¹æ»ç¼±±Ô°Ý»çÁø»ó¿¡¼­ SN-PP angle, SN-GoGn angle, SN-MP angle,
PFH/AFH ratio, SN to 6, PP to 6 µîÀ» °èÃøÇÏ°í, ºñ±³ºÐ¼®ÇÏ¿© ´ÙÀ½ÀÇ °á°ú¸¦ ¾ò¾ú´Ù.
1. ¼öÁ÷¼ºÀ屺¿¡¼­ ±¸°³Æò¸éÀÌ ÀüÇϹæÀ¸·Î °æ»çµÇ¾ú´Ù.
2. ¼öÆò¼ºÀ屺¿¡¼­ Èľȸé/Àü¾È¸é °í°æºñ°¡ Áõ°¡ÇÏ¿´´Ù.
3. ¼öÁ÷¼ºÀ屺°ú ¼öÆò¼ºÀ屺 ¸ðµÎ¿¡¼­ ÇϾÇÆò¸é°¢Àº º¯È­ÇÏÁö ¾Ê¾Ò´Ù.
4. »ó¾Ç´ë±¸Ä¡ÀÇ Á¤Ãâ¾ç¿¡ À־ ¼öÁ÷¼ºÀ屺°ú ¼öÆò¼ºÀ屺ÀÇ Â÷ÀÌ´Â ¾ø¾ú´Ù.
#ÃÊ·Ï#
The purpose of this study is to investigate the negative effects of cervical pull
headgear and to compare the differences between the two groups of growers-vertical
grower and horizontal grower group-which are classified by the posterior-anterior facial
height ratio. Initial and final lateral cephalograms were taken for 26 patients including 15
vertical growers and 11 horizontal growers ; also, 3 angular measurements and 4 linear
measurements were evaluated.
The following results were found.
1. The palatal plane was tipped anteroinferiorly in the vertical grower group.
2. The posterior facial height/anterior facial height ratio was increased in the horizontal
grower group.
3. The Mandibular plane angle remained stable on both groups.
4. There was no significant difference between the two groups in the amount of
maxillary molar extrusion.

Å°¿öµå

¥±±Þ ºÎÁ¤±³ÇÕ; °æºÎ°ßÀÎ Çìµå±â¾î; ¾È¸ðÀÇ ¼ºÀåÀ¯Çü; cervical pull headgear; facial growth pattern; Class ¥± malocclusion;

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

  

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

SCI(E)
KCI
KoreaMed