Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

Cone-Beam Computed Tomogram (CBCT)°ú Adjusted 2D lateral cephalogramÀÇ °èÃøÁ¡ Â÷ÀÌ¿¡ °üÇÑ ºñ±³ ¿¬±¸

Comparison of landmark positions between Cone-Beam Computed Tomogram (CBCT) and Adjusted 2D lateral cephalogram

´ëÇÑÄ¡°úº¸Ã¶ÇÐȸÁö 2014³â 52±Ç 3È£ p.222 ~ 232
¼Õ¼öÁ¤, ÀüÀ±½Ä, ±è¹ÎÁö,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
¼Õ¼öÁ¤ ( Son Soo-Jung ) - ÀÌÈ­¿©ÀÚ´ëÇб³ ÀÓ»óÄ¡ÀÇÇдëÇпø
ÀüÀ±½Ä ( Chun Youn-Sic ) - ÀÌÈ­¿©ÀÚ´ëÇб³ ÀÓ»óÄ¡ÀÇÇдëÇпø
±è¹ÎÁö ( Kim Min-Ji ) - ÀÌÈ­¿©ÀÚ´ëÇб³ ÀÓ»óÄ¡ÀÇÇдëÇпø

Abstract

¸ñÀû: º» ¿¬±¸¿¡¼­´Â CBCT (Cone-Beam Computed Tomogram)¿Í 100%·Î È®´ëÀ²À» º¸Á¤ÇÑ Á¶ÀýµÈ Ãø¸ð µÎºÎ ¹æ»ç¼± ±Ô°Ý °èÃø »çÁø(Adjusted 2D Lateral Cephalogram; ÀÌÇÏ Adj-Ceph)ÀÇ ÁÂÇ¥°ªÀ» ºñ±³ÇÏ¿© Â÷ÀÌ°¡ ÀÖ´Â °èÃøÁ¡µéÀÇ Ç׸ñÀ» ºÐ¼®ÇÏ¿© ±âÁ¸ÀÇ 2D ºÐ¼®¹ýÀ» CBCT ºÐ¼®¿¡ Àû¿ëÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´ÂÁö ¿©ºÎ¸¦ Æò°¡Çغ¸°íÀÚ ÇÏ¿´´Ù.

Àç·á ¹× ¹æ¹ý: ¼ºÀΠȯÀÚ 50¸íÀÇ CBCT ÀÚ·á 50°³¿Í, µ¿ÀÏ È¯ÀÚÀÇ Ãø¸ð µÎºÎ ¹æ»ç¼± ±Ô°Ý»çÁøÀ» 100% È®´ëÀ²·Î º¸Á¤ÇÑ ÀÚ·á(Adj-Ceph) 50°³¸¦ ´ë»óÀ¸·Î ÇÏ¿©, ¼öÆòÃà°ú ¼öÁ÷ÃàÀÇ ÁÂÇ¥¸¦ ºñ±³ÇÏ¿´´Ù. °èÃøÁ¡µéÀÇ À§Ä¡¿Í Á¿ì Áßø ¿©ºÎ¿¡ µû¶ó µÎ°³°ñ Àü¹æ¿¡ À§Ä¡ÇÑ Á¡µé(group A) , µÎ°³ ÁßÈĹ濡 À§Ä¡ÇÑ Á¡µé(group B), ÁÂ¿ì ¾çÃø¼º Á¡µé(group C), Ä¡¾ÆºÎÀ§ °èÃøÁ¡µé(group D) ³× ±×·ìÀ¸·Î ³ª´©¾î ºÐ¼® ÇÏ¿´°í, ÁÂÇ¥°ª¿¡ À¯ÀÇÇÑ Â÷ÀÌ°¡ ÀÖ´ÂÁö ºÐ¼®Çϱâ À§ÇÏ¿© paired t-test¸¦ ½ÃÇàÇÏ¿´´Ù.

°á°ú:¼öÆòÃà(YÃà)¿¡¼­´Â Group B (S, Ar, Ba, PNS), Group C (Po, Or, Hinge axis, Go), Group D (U1RP, U6CP, L6CP) µî 11°³ÀÇ °èÃøÁ¡¿¡¼­ À¯ÀÇÇÑ Â÷ÀÌ°¡ ÀÖ¾ú´Ù. ¼öÁ÷Ãà(ZÃà)¿¡¼­´Â Àüü °èÃøÁ¡¿¡¼­ À¯ÀÇÇÑ Â÷ÀÌ°¡ ÀÖ¾ú´Ù(P<.01). ÁÂÇ¥°ªÀÇ Â÷ÀÌ ºÐ¼® °á°ú ¼öÆòÃà¿¡¼­´Â 13°³ÀÇ °èÃøÁ¡¿¡¼­ 1 mm ÀÌ»óÀÇ À¯ÀÇÇÑ Â÷ÀÌ°¡ ÀÖ¾ú´Ù. ¼öÁ÷Ãà¿¡¼­´Â Group BÀÇ Sella¸¦ Á¦¿ÜÇÑ Àüü °èÃøÁ¡¿¡¼­ 1 mm ÀÌ»óÀÇ À¯ÀÇÇÑ Â÷ÀÌ°¡ ÀÖ¾ú´Ù.

°á·Ð:CBCT ºÐ¼® ½Ã¿¡´Â ±âÁ¸ÀÇ Ãø¸ðµÎºÎ¹æ»ç¼± ±Ô°Ý»çÁøÀÇ ºÐ¼®¹ýÀ» ±×´ë·Î »ç¿ëÇϱ⿡´Â ¾î·Á¿òÀÌ ÀÖ´Ù. 3D ºÐ¼®¹ý, ¶Ç´Â ¼öÆòÃà¿¡¼­ 13°³ÀÇ °èÃøÁ¡µéÀÌ º¸Á¤µÇ°í, ¼öÄ¢Ãà 19°³°¡ º¸Á¤µÈ ¼öÁ¤µÈ »õ·Î¿î 2D ºÐ¼®¹ýÀÌ »ç¿ëµÇ¾î¾ß ÇÑ´Ù.

PURPOSE. This study aims to investigate if 2D analysis method is applicable to analysis of CBCT by comparing measuring points of CBCT with those of Adjusted 2D Lateral Cephalogram (Adj-Ceph) with magnification adjusted to 100% and finding out at which landmarks the difference in position appear.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. CBCT data and Adj-Ceph (100% magnification) data from 50 adult patients have been extracted as research objects, and the horizontal (Y axis) and vertical (Z axis) coordinates of landmarks were compared. Landmarks have been categorized into 4 groups by the position and whether they are bilaterally overlapped. Paired t-test was used to compare differences between Adj-Ceph and CBCT.

RESULTS. Significant difference was found at 11 landmarks including Group B (S, Ar, Ba, PNS), Group C (Po, Or, Hinge axis, Go) and Group D (U1RP, U6CP, L6CP) in the horizontal (Y) axis while all the landmarks in vertical (Z) axis showed significant difference (P<.05). As a result of landmark difference analysis, a meaningful difference with more than 1 mm at 13 landmarks were indentifed in the horizontal axis. In the vertical axis, significant difference over 1 mm was detected from every landmark except Sella.

CONCLUSION. Using the conventional lateral cephalometric measurements on CBCT is insufficient. A new 3D analysis or a modified 2D analysis adjusted on 19 landmarks of the vertical axis and 13 of the horizontal axis are needed when implementing CBCT diagnosis.

Å°¿öµå

CBCT; º¸Á¤µÈ Ãø¸ðµÎºÎ¹æ»ç¼±»çÁø; °èÃøÁ¡ÀÇ Â÷ÀÌ
CBCT; Adjusted lateral cephalogram; Landmark differences

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

 

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

KCI
KoreaMed