Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

¼ºÀÎ °ñ°Ý¼º III±Þ ºÎÁ¤±³ÇÕȯÀÚÀÇ ÇÏ¾Ç ¼Ò±¸Ä¡ ¹ßÄ¡¸¦ ÅëÇÑ º¸»óÄ¡·á

Camouflage treatment in adult skeletal Class III cases by extraction of two lower premolars

Korean Journal of Orthodontics 2010³â 40±Ç 5È£ p.349 ~ 357
Ning Fang, Duan Yinzhong,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
 ( Ning Fang ) - Fourth Military Medical University School of Pharmacy Department of Orthodontics
 ( Duan Yinzhong ) - Fourth Military Medical University School of Pharmacy Department of Orthodontics

Abstract

À̹ø ¿¬±¸ÀÇ ¸ñÀûÀº ¼ºÀÎ °ñ°Ý¼º III±Þ ºÎÁ¤±³ÇÕȯÀÚÀÇ ÇÏ¾Ç Á¦1¼Ò±¸Ä¡ ¶Ç´Â Á¦2¼Ò±¸Ä¡ ¹ßÄ¡ ÈÄ¿¡ Ä¡Á¶°ñ°Ý¼º º¯È­¿Í ¿¬Á¶Á÷ º¯È­¸¦ Æò°¡ÇÏ´Â µ¥ ÀÖ´Ù. 28¸íÀÇ °æ°è¼±»ó¿¡ ÀÖ´Â °ñ°Ý¼º III±Þ ºÎÁ¤±³ÇÕȯÀÚµéÀÌ ¿¬±¸µÇ¾ú´Ù. ¸ðµç ȯÀÚ´Â ÇÏ¾Ç Á¦1¼Ò±¸Ä¡ ¶Ç´Â Á¦2¼Ò±¸Ä¡¸¦ ¹ßÄ¡ÇÑ ÈÄ Ä¡·áµÇ¾úÀ¸¸ç Ä¡·á Àü°ú Ä¡·á ÈÄ Ãø¸ðµÎºÎ¹æ»ç¼±»çÁøÀ» ÃÔ¿µÇÏ¿© paired t-test¸¦ ÅëÇØ ºÐ¼®ÇÏ¿´´Ù. Ä¡·á ÈÄ¿¡ °ñ°ÝÀûÀ¸·Î À¯ÀǼº ÀÖ´Â º¯È­´Â °üÂûµÇÁö ¾Ê¾Ò´Ù. Ä¡¼ºº¯È­¿¡ ´ëÇØ ÇÏ¾Ç ÀüÄ¡°¢µµ°¡ 8.1µµ Á¤µµ °¨¼ÒÇÏ¿´À¸¸ç interincisal angleÀº 7.7µµ Á¤µµÁõ°¡ÇÏ¿´´Ù (p £¼ 0.01). ¼öÆò ÇÇ°³´Â 5.7 mm·Î Áõ°¡ÇÏ¿´À¸¸ç (p £¼ 0.01), L1-NB °¢Àº 7.3µµ °¨¼ÒÇÏ¿´°í L1-NB °Å¸®
´Â 4.8 mm °¨¼ÒÇÏ¿´´Ù (p £¼ 0.01). ¿¬Á¶Á÷ º¯È­¿¡ ÀÖ¾î Li-E, Li-H°ú LiRL2 °Å¸®´Â °¢°¢ 3.2 mm, 3.4 mm, 4.1 mm °¨¼ÒÇÏ¿´´Ù (p £¼ 0.01). ½ÉÇÏÁö ¾ÊÀº °ñ°Ý¼º III±Þ ºÎÁ¤±³ÇÕȯÀÚ¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ÇÏ¾Ç ¼Ò±¸Ä¡ ¹ßÄ¡¸¦ ÅëÇÑ ±³Á¤ÀûÀÎ º¸»óÄ¡·á´Â ¿ì¼öÇÑ ±³ÇÕ°ü°è¸¦ ´Þ¼ºÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖÀ¸¸ç ¿¹ÃøÀÌ °¡´ÉÇÑ Ä¡·á ´ë¾ÈÀÌ µÉ ¼ö ÀÖ´Ù.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the dentoskeletal and soft tissue profile changes after
extraction of two lower first or second premolars in ¡°borderline¡± adult skeletal Class III cases.

Methods: Twenty-eight patients with ¡°borderline¡± skeletal Class III malocclusion were studied. All of them were treated by extraction of two lower first or second premolars. Lateral cephalometric radiographs taken at the start and end of treatment were analysed. Twenty-five cephalometric variables were calculated and paired t-tests were performed.
Results: After treatment, no significant changes were noted in the skeletal parameters (p¡Ã 0.05). Regarding the dental parameters, the L1-MP angle decreased by 8.1o, the U1-L1 angle increased by 7.7o (p £¼ 0.01), the overjet distance increased by 5.7 mm (p £¼ 0.01), the L1-NB angle decreased by 7.3o and the L1-NB distance decreased by 4.8 mm (p £¼ 0.01). The soft tissue parameters of Li-E, Li-H and Li-RL2 distance decreased by 3.2 mm, 3.4 mm and 4.1 mm espectively (p £¼ 0.01).

Conslusions: Orthodontic camouflage treatment by extraction of two lower first or second premolars provides a viable treatment alternative for ¡°borderline¡± skeletal Class III cases to achieve a good occlusal relationship.

Å°¿öµå

III±Þ Ä¡·á; Áø´Ü°ú Ä¡·á°èȹ; ¼ºÀα³Á¤; Ä¡¾ÆÀ̵¿
Class III treatment; Diagnosis and treatment planning; Adult treatment; Tooth movement

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

   

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

SCI(E)
KCI
KoreaMed