Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

ÃøÁ¤¹æ¹ý¿¡ µû¸¥ ½Ã»ó°ú·Î °æ»ç°¢ÀÇ Â÷ÀÌ¿¡ °üÇÑ ¿¬±¸

A sutdy on the difference of the sagital condylar guidances by measuring methods

´ëÇÑÄ¡°úº¸Ã¶ÇÐȸÁö 1993³â 31±Ç 1È£ p.77 ~ 86
À¯Áø¿µ, °è±â¼º,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
À¯Áø¿µ ( Lew Jin-Young ) - Á¶¼±´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ º¸Ã¶Çб³½Ç
°è±â¼º ( Kay Kee-Sung ) - Á¶¼±´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ Ä¡°úº¸Ã¶Çб³½Ç

Abstract


The purpose of this study was to compare the sagittal condylar guidance obtained by the graphic method(pantographic tracing) with that produced by the positional method(check-bite). Ten adults who had normal occlusion and were free of TMJ dysfunction were selected, and then clutches were constructed. At first pantographic survey was performed and the articulator was adjusted with each pantographic recording. And then three protrusive check-bite were taken (?) the subjects using the polyether(Lamitec(r)) on the buccal side of the posterior teeth without than interocclusal record method and the vericheck method was performed with each protrusive checkbite. Sagittal condylar guidances obtained by using the pantograph and Vericheck were comparn(?) and analyzed statistically. @ES The results were as follows: @EN 1. The average condylar guidance angle at 4mm and 7mm from centric relation point on the pantograph(35.9¡¾1.10¡Æ, 32.4¡¾1.55¡Æ) was statistically significant (P<0.01). 2. The average condylar guidance angle of Vericheck was 27.0¡¾3.43¡Æ. 3. The comparison of the right and left was not statistically significant in all group(P>0.05). 4. The comparison of pantograph and vericheck was statistically significant in the right (?) left(P<0.001).

Å°¿öµå

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

  

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

KCI
KoreaMed