Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

´Ùº¯·® ±â¹ýÀ» ÀÌ¿ëÇÑ È¥ÇÕÄ¡¿­±â ºÐ¼®¹ý

Mixed dentition analysis using a multivariate approach

Korean Journal of Orthodontics 2009³â 39±Ç 2È£ p.112 ~ 119
¼­½ÂÇö, ¾ÈÈ«¼®, À̽ÅÀç, ÀÓ¿øÈñ, ±èºÀ·¡,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
¼­½ÂÇö ( Seo Seung-Hyun ) - ¼­¿ï´ëÇб³ Ä¡ÀÇÇдëÇпø
¾ÈÈ«¼® ( An Hong-Seok ) - ¼­¿ï´ëÇб³ Ä¡ÀÇÇдëÇпø
À̽ÅÀç ( Lee Shin-Jae ) - ¼­¿ï´ëÇб³ Ä¡ÀÇÇдëÇпø
ÀÓ¿øÈñ ( Lim Won-Hee ) - ¼­¿ï´ëÇб³ Ä¡ÀÇÇдëÇпø
±èºÀ·¡ ( Kim Bong-Rae ) - ¼­¿ï´ëÇб³ Ä¡ÀÇÇдëÇпø

Abstract

º» ¿¬±¸´Â ´Ùº¯·® ±â¹ýÀ» µµÀÔÇÏ¿© Ä¡¾Æ Å©±âÀÇ ´Ù¾ç¼ºÀ» °í·ÁÇϸ鼭 Á¤È®¼ºÀÌ ³ôÀº È¥ÇÕÄ¡¿­±â ºÐ¼®¹ýÀ» °³¹ßÇϱâ À§ÇØ ½ÃÇàµÇ¾ú´Ù. °ßÄ¡ ¹× ¼Ò±¸Ä¡ Å©±â¸¦ ¿¹ÃøÇÏ´Â µ¥ ÀÌ¿ëµÈ º¯¼ö´Â »ó¾Ç ÁßÀýÄ¡, »ó¾Ç Á¦1´ë±¸Ä¡, ÇÏ¾Ç ÁßÀýÄ¡, ÇÏ¾Ç ÃøÀýÄ¡ ¹× ÇÏ¾Ç Á¦1´ë±¸Ä¡·Î¼­ ÃÑ 5°³ Ä¡¾Æ Å©±â º¯¼ö°¡ ÀÌ¿ëµÇ¾ú´Ù. ¿ì¼± Á¤»ó±³ÇÕÀÚ ¿¬±¸ Ç¥º» 307¸íÀ» 5°³ Ä¡¾Æ º¯¼ö¸¦ ÀÌ¿ëÇÏ¿© k-means ±ºÁý ºÐ¼®À¸·Î Ä¡¾Æ Å©±â¿¡ µû¶ó ³ª´« ÈÄ ÆǺ°½ÄÀ» ÀÌ¿ë, Ä¡¾Æ Å©±â°¡ Å« ±×·ì°ú ÀÛÀº ±×·ìÀ¸·Î ºÐ·ùÇÏ¿´´Ù. ÀÌÈÄ °ßÄ¡¿Í ¼Ò±¸Ä¡ Å©±âÀÇ ÇÕÀ» ¿¹ÃøÇϱâ À§ÇÏ¿© ³²³àº°, »óÇϾǺ°, Ä¡¾Æ Å©±â ±×·ìº°·Î ´ÙÁß ¼±Çü ºÐ¼®À» ÀÌ¿ëÇÏ¿© ȸ±Í½ÄÀ» ±¸Çß´Ù. °ËÁõ Ç¥º»¿¡´Â 504¸íÀÇ ºÎÁ¤±³ÇÕÀÚ°¡ ÀÌ¿ëµÇ¾úÀ¸¸ç, À̵鿡 ´ëÇÏ¿© Á¤»ó±³ÇÕÀڷκÎÅÍ µµÃâµÈ ÆǺ°½ÄÀ» ÀÌ¿ëÇÏ¿© 2±×·ìÀ¸·Î ÇÒ´çÇÑ ÈÄ Á¤»ó±³ÇÕÀڷκÎÅÍ µµÃâµÈ ȸ±Í½ÄÀ» ÀÌ¿ëÇÏ¿© »ó¾Ç°ú ÇϾÇÀÇ °ßÄ¡ ¹× ¼Ò±¸Ä¡ Å©±â ÇÕÀ» ¿¹ÃøÇÏ¿´´Ù. ¿ÀÂ÷ ºÐ¼® °á°ú Á¤»ó±³ÇÕÀÚ´Â ÃÖ´ë 0.71, ºÎÁ¤±³ÇÕÀÚ °ËÁõÇ¥º»Àº ÃÖ´ë 0.82 mmÀÇ residual standard deviation °ªÀ» º¸¿´´Ù. ºÎÁ¤±³ÇÕ ºÐ·ùº°, Ä¡¾Æ Å©±â ÆÐÅϺ°·Î ¿¹Ãø ¿ÀÂ÷ÀÇ À¯ÀÇÇÑ Â÷ÀÌ´Â ¾ø¾ú´Ù. 1 mm ¹× 2 mm ÀÌ»óÀÇ ¿¹Ãø ¿ÀÂ÷¸¦ º¸ÀÎ ºóµµ´Â °¢°¢ 17.3%¿Í 1.8%¿´´Ù. º» ¿¬±¸ °á°ú µµÃâµÈ È¥ÇÕÄ¡¿­±â ºÐ¼®¹ýÀº ±âÁ¸ÀÇ ¿¬±¸µé°ú ºñ±³ÇÏ¿© ±× Á¤È®¼ºÀÌ ³ôÀº °ÍÀ¸·Î °íÂûµÇ¾ú´Ù. ´Ù¸¸, ÀÓ»ó Àû¿ë ½Ã º¹ÀâÇÑ °è»ê °úÁ¤À¸·Î ÀÎÇÏ¿© Àü»êÈ­ ȯ°æ¿¡¼­ ´õ¿í À¯¿ëÇÒ °ÍÀ¸·Î »ý°¢µÈ´Ù

Objective: To develop a mixed dentition analysis method in consideration of the normal variation of tooth sizes.
Methods: According to the tooth-size of the maxillary central incisor, maxillary 1st molar, mandibular central incisor, mandibular lateral incisor, and mandibular 1st molar, 307 normal occlusion subjects were clustered into the smaller and larger tooth-size groups. Multiple regression analyses were then performed to predict the sizes of the canine and premolars for the 2 groups and both genders separately. For a cross validation dataset, 504 malocclusion patients were assigned into the 2 groups. Then multiple regression equations were applied.

Results: Our results show that the maximum errors of the predicted space for the canine, 1st and 2nd premolars were 0.71 and 0.82 mm residual standard deviation for the normal occlusion and malocclusion groups, respectively. For malocclusion patients, the prediction errors did not imply a statistically significant difference depending on the types of malocclusion nor the types of tooth-size groups. The frequency of prediction error more than 1 mm and 2 mm were 17.3% and 1.8%, respectively. The overall prediction accuracy was dramatically improved in this study compared to that of previous studies.

Conclusions: The computer aided calculation method used in this study appeared to be more efficient.

Å°¿öµå

Ä¡¾Æ Å©±â ¿¹Ãø;±ºÁý ºÐ¼®;ÆǺ° ºÐ¼®;´ÙÁß È¸±Í
Tooth size prediction;Cluster analysis;Discriminant analysis;Multiple regression

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

  

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

SCI(E)
KCI
KoreaMed