Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

Pont Áö¼öÀÇ ÀÓ»óÀû ÀûÇÕ¼º¿¡ ´ëÇÑ Æò°¡

An evaluation of the adequacy of pont's index

Korean Journal of Orthodontics 2000³â 30±Ç 1È£ p.115 ~ 126
±è¼ºÈÆ, À̱â¼ö,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
±è¼ºÈÆ (  ) - °æ»ó´ëÇб³ ÀÇ°ú´ëÇÐ ÇǺΰúÇб³½Ç
À̱â¼ö (  ) - °æ»ó´ëÇб³ ÀÇ°ú´ëÇÐ ÇǺΰúÇб³½Ç

Abstract

kabstract :
Ä¡¿­±ÃÀÇ È®ÀåÀº Ä¡¾ÆÀÇ ÃÑ»ý ºÎÁ¤±³ÇÕÀ» ºñ¹ßÄ¡·Î Ä¡·áÇϱâ À§ÇÑ ¹æ¹ýÁß ÇϳªÀ̸ç, Ä¡¿­
±Ã È®ÀåÀÇ Áø´Ü°ú Ä¡·á¸¦ À§ÇÏ¿© »ó¾ÇÀýÄ¡ÀÇ ±Ù¿ø½É Æø°æÀ¸·ÎºÎÅÍ ÀÌ»óÀûÀÎ Á¦1¼Ò±¸Ä¡°£ Ä¡
¿­±Ã Æø°æ°ú Á¦1´ë±¸Ä¡°£ Ä¡¿­±Ã Æø°æÀ» ¿¹ÃøÇÏ´Â °ø½ÄÀÌ Á¦½ÃµÇ¾î ÀÖ´Ù. ÀÌ ¿¬±¸ÀÇ ¸ñÀûÀº
Á¦½ÃµÈ °ø½ÄÁß¿¡¼­ PontÀÇ ¿¹Ãø½Ä, SchmuthÀÇ ¿¹Ãø½Ä ¹× Cha µéÀÇ ¿¹Ãø½ÄÀ» Á¤»ó±³ÇÕÀÇ
°èÃø°ú ºñ±³ÇÏ°í, ÀÌµé ¿¹Ãø½ÄÀÇ ÀÓ»óÀû ½Å·Ú¼ºÀ» Æò°¡ÇÏ´Â °ÍÀÌ´Ù.
13¼¼¿¡¼­ 23¼¼»çÀÌÀÇ Çѱ¹ÀÎ Å»ý Á¤»ó±³ÇÕÀÚÀÇ ¼®°í¸ðÇüÀ» ´ë»óÀ¸·Î »ó¾Ç ÀýÄ¡ ±Ù¿ø½É
Æø°æ, Á¦1¼Ò±¸Ä¡°£ Ä¡¿­±Ã Æø°æ ¹× Á¦1´ë±¸Ä¡°£ Ä¡¿­±Ã Æø°æ»çÀÌÀÇ »ó°ü°ü°è¸¦ Æò°¡ÇÏ¿´À¸
¸ç, Á¤»ó±³ÇÕÀÇ ÀýÄ¡Æø°æÀÇ ÇÕÀ» PontÀÇ ¿¹Ãø½Ä, SchmuthÀÇ ¿¹Ãø½Ä ¹× Cha µéÀÇ ¿¹Ãø½Ä¿¡
´ëÀÔÇÏ¿© ÀÌ»óÀû Á¦1¼Ò±¸Ä¡°£ ¹× Á¦1´ë±¸Ä¡°£ Ä¡¿­±Ã Æø°æÀÇ ¿¹ÃøÄ¡¸¦ »êÃâÇÏ°í, À̸¦ Á¤»ó
±³ÇÕÀÚÀÇ ±×°Í°ú ºñ±³ÇÏ¿© ´ÙÀ½ÀÇ °á°ú¿Í °á·ÐÀ» ¾ò¾ú´Ù.
1. Á¤»ó±³ÇÕ¿¡¼­ »ó¾Ç ÀýÄ¡ ±Ù¿ø½É Æø°æÀÇ ÇÕ (SI) À¸·ÎºÎÅÍ »êÃâµÈ Á¦1¼Ò±¸Ä¡°£ Ä¡¿­±Ã Æø
°æ Áö¼ö´Â 81.96À̾ú°í, Á¦1 ´ë±¸Ä¡°£ Ä¡¿­±Ã Æø°æ Áö¼ö´Â 62.55À̾ú´Ù.
2. Á¤»ó±³ÇÕ¿¡¼­ »ó¾Ç ÀýÄ¡ ±Ù¿ø½É Æø°æÀÇ ÇÕ (SI) °ú Á¦ 1¼Ò±¸Ä¡°£ Ä¡¿­±Ã Æø°æ (PmW) »ç
ÀÌÀÇ »ó°ü°è¼ö´Â 0.50À̾ú°í, Á¦1´ë±¸Ä¡°£ Ä¡¿­±Ã Æø°æ(MW)»çÀÌÀÇ »ó°ü°è¼ö´Â 0.39·Î ¸ðµÎ
Åë°èÀû À¯ÀǼºÀÌ ÀÖ´Â ÀúµµÀÇ »ó°ü°ü°è¸¦ ³ªÅ¸³Â´Ù.
3. Á¤»ó±³ÇÕ¿¡¼­ »ó¾Ç ÀýÄ¡ ±Ù¿ø½É Æø°æÀÇ ÇÕÀ¸·ÎºÎÅÍ Á¦1¼Ò±¸Ä¡°£ Æø°æ°ú Á¦1´ë±¸Ä¡°£ Æø
°æÀÇ ¿¹ÃøÀ» À§ÇÑ »ó°ü½ÄÀº ½Å·Ú¼ºÀÌ ¸Å¿ì ³·¾Ò´Ù (r2=0.25,
r2=0.15).
4. ÀÌ»óÀû Á¦1¼Ò±¸Ä¡°£ Ä¡¿­±Ã Æø°æÀÇ ¿¹ÃøÀÌ 1mmÀÇ ¿ÀÂ÷ÇÑ°è À̳»·Î ¿¹ÃøµÈ °æ¿ì´Â Cha
µåÀÇ ¿¹Ãø½ÄÀÌ °¡Àå ³ôÀ¸¸ç (45%), PontÀÇ ¿¹Ãø½Ä°ú SchmuteÀÇ ¿¹Ãø½ÄÀº °¢°¢ 40% ¿Í
39% À̾ú´Ù.
6. ÀÌ»óÀû Á¦1´ë±¸Ä¡°£ Ä¡¿­±Ã Æø°æÀÇ ¿¹Ãø¿¡ À־ ¸ðµç ¿¹Ãø½ÄÀº ÀÛ°Ô ¿¹ÃøµÇ´Â °æÇâÀ»
º¸¿´À¸¸ç, ±× Áß¿¡¼­µµ ChaµéÀÇ ¿¹Ãø½ÄÀº ¿¹Ãø¼ºÀÌ °¡Àå ¾çÈ£ÇÏ¿´´Ù.
7. ÀÌ»óÀû Á¦1´ë±¸°£ Ä¡¿­±Ã Æø°æÀÇ ¿¹ÃøÀÌ 1mmÀÇ ¿ÀÂ÷ÇÑ°è À̳»·Î ¿¹ÃøµÈ °æ¿ì´Â Cha µé
ÀÇ ¿¹Ãø½ÄÀÌ 40%·Î °¡Àå ³ôÀ¸¸ç, Pont¿Í SchmuthÀÇ ¿¹Ãø½ÄÀº °¢°¢ 29% ¿Í 13% À̾ú´Ù.
ÀÌ»óÀÇ °á°ú´Â »ó¾Ç ÀýÄ¡ÀÇ ±Ù¿ø½É Æø°æÀÇ ÇÕÀ¸·ÎºÎÅÍ ÀÌ»óÀû Á¦1¼Ò±¸Ä¡°£ Ä¡¿­±Ã Æø°æ
¹× Á¦1´ë±¸°£ Ä¡¿­±Ã Æø°æÀ» ¿¹ÃøÇÏ´Â °ÍÀº ÀÓ»óÀû ½Å·Ú¼ºÀÌ ³·À» °ÍÀÓÀ» ½Ã»çÇÑ´Ù.
#ÃÊ·Ï#
-Abstract-
Dental arch expansion in one of the method used to solve the dental crowding
problem by non-extraction. Many formulae using tooth size have been suggested to
predict ideal inter-premolar and inter-molar width. The purpose of this study was to
evaluate the adequacy of some of some upper dental arch width prediction methods,
namely Pont's method, Schmuth's method and Cha's method.
The sample consisted of the casts of 119 Korean young adults who had no muscular
abnormality, no skeletal discrepancy, and Angle's Class I molar relationships.
Measurements were obtained directly form plaster casts; they included mesiodistal crown
diameters of the four maxillary incisors, as well as maxillary inter-first-premolar and
inter-first-molar arch widths as specified by Pont. The correlation coefficients between
the sum of incisors(SI) and upper dental arch width were calculated. The differences
between predicted width and actual width wee classified as overestimated,
properestimated, and underestimated. The data obtained from each group were analyzed
for statistical differences.
The results were as follows :
1. Upper dental arch width indices were calculated from SI in normal occlusion (81.96 :
premolar index, 62.55 : molar index).
2. Low correlations between SI and arch width were noted in normal occlusion (0.50 in
the inter-premolar width, 0.39 in the inter-molar width).
3. Pont's formula and Schmuth's formula tended to overestimate the inter-premolar. A
more even distribution of estimates was noted in Cha's formula.
4. Cases within 1mm range of observed inter-premolar width were 45% in the Pont's
formula, and 39% in the Schmuth's formula.
5. All formulae had a tendency to underestimate the inter-molar width, but Cha's
formula had better predictability than others.
6. Cases within 1mm range of observed inter-molar width were 40% in the Cha's
formula, 29% in the Pont's formula, and 13% of Schmuth's formula.
The data presented in this study dose not support the clinical usefulness of ideal arch
width prediction methods using the mesiodistal width of maxillary incisors.

Å°¿öµå

ÀÌ»óÀû Ä¡¿­±Ã Æø°æ; Ä¡¿­±Ã Æø°æÀÇ ¿¹Ãø; ÀýÄ¡ÀÇ ±Ù¿ø½É Æø°æ; Ideal dental arch width; Prediction of dental arch width; Mesiodistal width of incisor;

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

  

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

SCI(E)
KCI
KoreaMed