Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

»ó¾Ç °¡Ã¶½Ä º¸Á¤ÀåÄ¡ÀÎ circumferential comfortable retainer (CCR)¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ºÒÆí°¨ Æò°¡

Discomfort caused by the circumferential comfortable retainer (CCR) as a removable maxillary retainer

Korean Journal of Orthodontics 2010³â 40±Ç 5È£ p.325 ~ 333
ÃÖÁøÈÞ, ¹®Ã¶Çö,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
ÃÖÁøÈÞ ( Choi Jin-Hugh ) - Áß¾Ó´ëÇб³ ÀÇ°ú´ëÇÐ Ä¡°úÇб³½Ç
¹®Ã¶Çö ( Moon Cheol-Hyun ) - °¡ÃµÀÇ°úÇдëÇб³ ±æÄ¡°úº´¿ø ±³Á¤°ú

Abstract

¹ßÀ½Àå¾Ö, ±¸Åä°¨ ¹× Âø¿ë ºÒÆí°¨°ú °°Àº º¸Á¤ÀåÄ¡¿¡ ´ëÇØ È¯ÀÚ°¡ ´À³¢´Â ºÒÆí°¨À» Æò°¡Çغ¸±â À§ÇØ °íÁ¤½Ä ±³Á¤ÀåÄ¡·Î ±³Á¤Ä¡·á¸¦ ¹Þ°í ±³Á¤ÀåÄ¡°¡ Á¦°ÅµÈ 66¸í(³²ÀÚ 23¸í, ¿©ÀÚ 43¸í; Æò±Õ¿¬·É 23.42 ¡¾ 10.19)ÀÇ ±³Á¤È¯ÀÚ¸¦ ´ë»óÀ¸·Î ¹«ÀÛÀ§·Î µÎ ±ºÀ¸·Î ¹èÁ¤ÇÑ ÈÄ °íÁ¤½Ä ±³Á¤ÀåÄ¡¸¦ Á¦°ÅÇÑ ´ÙÀ½ ³¯ CWR ÀåÂø±º¿¡°Ô´Â ±¸°³¸¦ ¿ÏÀüÈ÷ µ¤´Â ±¸°³¿ÏÀü ÇÇ°³Çü º¸Á¤ÀåÄ¡ÀÎ conventional wraparound retainer (CWR)¸¦ ÀåÂø½ÃÅ°°í CCR ÀåÂø±º¿¡°Ô´Â ±¸°³¸¦ ¸» ¹ß±Á¸ð¾çÀ¸·Î ºÎºÐ ÇÇ°³ÇÏ´Â º¸Á¤ÀåÄ¡ÀÎ circumferential comfortable retainer (CCR)¸¦ 4ÁÖ µ¿¾È ÀåÂø½ÃŲ ÈÄ ¹ßÀ½Àå¾Ö, ±¸Åä°¨ ¹× Âø¿ë ºÒÆí°¨ÀÇ Á¤µµ¿¡ ´ëÇØ 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS)·Î Ç¥½ÃÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖµµ·Ï Á¦ÀÛµÈ ¼³¹®Áö¸¦ ÅëÇØ ¾òÀº Á¡¼ö¿¡ ´ëÇØ Åë°èÀûÀ¸·Î ºñ±³ ºÐ¼®ÇÏ¿´´Ù. ¿¬±¸°á°ú ¹ßÀ½Àå¾Ö¿Í Âø¿ë ºÒÆí°¨ÀÇ ºñ±³¿¡¼­ CCR ÀåÂø±ºÀÌ CWR ÀåÂø±º¿¡ ºñÇØ Åë°èÀûÀ¸·Î À¯ÀÇÇÏ°Ô ³·¾Ò´Ù (p £¼ 0.05). ±¸Åä°¨ÀÇ ºñ±³¿¡¼­´Â CCR ÀåÂø±ºÀÌ CWR ÀåÂø±º¿¡ ºñÇØ ³·Àº Á¡¼ö¸¦ º¸¿´Áö¸¸ Åë°èÀûÀ¸·Î´Â À¯ÀÇÇÑ Â÷À̸¦ º¸ÀÌÁö ¾Ê¾Ò´Ù (p = 0.146). ÀÌ»óÀÇ ¿¬±¸ °á°ú·Î circumferential comfortable retainer (CCR)´Â ¹ßÀ½Àå¾Ö¸¦ °¨¼Ò½ÃÅ°°í, Âø¿ë ºÒÆí°¨À» ¿ÏÈ­½ÃÅ´À¸·Î½á ȯÀÚÀÇ ÇùÁ¶µµ¸¦ ÁõÁø½ÃÄÑÁÙ ¼ö Àִ¹٠°íÁ¤½Ä ±³Á¤ÀåÄ¡¸¦ ÀÌ¿ëÇÑ ±³Á¤Ä¡·á ÈÄ Ä¡·á°á°ú À¯Áö¿¡ µµ¿òÀÌ µÉ ¼ö ÀÖÀ½À» ½Ã»çÇÏ¿´´Ù.

Objective: The aim of this study was to illustrate the circumferential comfortable retainer (CCR) as a removable
maxillary retainer with good potential patient compliance and to evaluate the discomfort of the retainers including
distorted speech, gagging sensation and appliance discomfort.

Methods: Sixty-six orthodontic patients (male, 23; female, 43; mean age, 23.42 ¡¾ 10.19 years) who received orthodontic treatment with fixed orthodontic appliances were randomly assigned to two groups after debonding, a conventional wraparound retainer (CWR) group that fully covers the palate with an acrylic plate and a highly polished surface, and a circumferential comfortable retainer (CCR) group which has a horseshoe shaped base plate with three folds on the anterior region. A questionnaire that had a visual analog scale (VAS) which consists of a 100-mm horizontal line with 2 end-points labeled ¡°no discomfort¡± on the left and ¡°worst discomfort¡± on the right, with regard to distorted speech, gagging sensation and discomfort, was administered to patients after 4 weeks of retainer wear. The Mann-Whitney test was used to test the hypothesis that there was no difference between the two retainers.

Results: Comparing distorted speech and discomfort, the CCR group significantly had lower values than the CWR group (p £¼ 0.05). Comparing gagging sensation, the CCR group had lower values than the CWR group but there were no statistically significant differences between groups (p = 0.146).

Conclusions: In conclusion, the results suggest that the circumferential comfortable retainer (CCR) might facilitate patient compliance and thereby improve the maintenance of the fixed orthodontic treatment outcome.

Å°¿öµå

°¡Ã¶½Ä º¸Á¤ÀåÄ¡; ¹ßÀ½Àå¾Ö; ºÒÆí°¨; ÇùÁ¶µµ
Removable retainer; Distorted speech; Discomfort; Patient compliance

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

   

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

SCI(E)
KCI
KoreaMed