Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

´ëÇÕ Á¶°Ç¿¡ µû¸¥ ÀÓÇöõÆ® ÁÖº¯ °ñ¹Ðµµ º¯È­¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ÇÁ·¢Å» ±¸Á¶ ºÐ¼®

Fractal analysis of peri-implant bone density surrounding implant with different state of antagonist

´ëÇÑÄ¡°úº¸Ã¶ÇÐȸÁö 2016³â 54±Ç 1È£ p.14 ~ 20
±èÁÖÈñ, ÀÌÀçÀÎ,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
±èÁÖÈñ ( Kim Ju-Hee ) - ¿ø±¤´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ Ä¡°úº¸Ã¶Çб³½Ç
ÀÌÀçÀΠ( Lee Jae-In ) - ¿ø±¤´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ Ä¡°úº¸Ã¶Çб³½Ç

Abstract

¸ñÀû: º» ¿¬±¸ÀÇ ¸ñÀûÀº ÀÓÇöõÆ®¿Í ´ëÇյǴ ºÎºÐÀÇ »óÅ¿¡ µû¶ó¼­ ÀÓÇöõÆ® ÁÖÀ§ °ñÁ¶Á÷ º¯È­¿¡ Â÷ÀÌ°¡ ÀÖ´ÂÁö ¾Ë¾Æº¸±â À§ÇÔÀÌ´Ù.

´ë»ó ¹× ¹æ¹ý: ¿ø±¤´ëÇб³ ´ëÀüÄ¡°úº´¿ø¿¡¼­ ÀÓÇöõÆ® ½Ä¸³À» ¹ÞÀº 51¸íÀÇ È¯ÀÚ¸¦ ´ë»óÀ¸·Î ÇÏ¿´°í ÃÑ 51°³ÀÇ ÀÓÇöõÆ®°¡ ºÐ¼®¿¡ »ç¿ëµÇ¾ú´Ù. ÀÓÇöõÆ®´Â ¼ºº°, ³ªÀÌ, ¾Ç°ñ À§Ä¡, ȯÀÚÀÇ ´ëÇյǴ ºÎÀ§¿¡ µû¶ó¼­ ºÐ·ùµÇ¾ú°í ´ëÇյǴ ºÎÀ§´Â ÀÚ¿¬Ä¡, ÀÓÇöõÆ®, °¡°øÄ¡, ¹«Ä¡¾ÇÀÇ ³× Áý´ÜÀ¸·Î ³ª´µ¾ú´Ù. ÇÁ·¢Å» ºÐ¼®À» À§ÇØ ÀÓÇöõÆ® ½Ä¸³ Á÷ÈÄÀÇ Ä¡±Ù´Ü »çÁø°ú º¸Ã¶ ¼öº¹ ÀÌÈÄ 10ÁÖ ÀÌ»óÀÌ Áö³­ Ä¡±Ù´Ü »çÁøÀÌ »ç¿ëµÇ¾ú´Ù. ºÐ¼®Àº Image J¸¦ ÀÌ¿ëÇÏ¿© ½ÃÇàÇÏ¿´´Ù. Åë°èÇÐÀû ºÐ¼®Àº one-way ANOVA¸¦ ÀÌ¿ëÇÏ¿© ½ÃÇàÇÏ¿´°í Tukey multiple comparison test·Î »çÈÄ°ËÁ¤À» ½Ç½ÃÇÏ¿´´Ù.

°á°ú: ÀÓÇöõÆ®ÀÇ º¸Ã¶¼öº¹ ÀüÈÄ ÇÁ·¢Å» °ª Â÷ÀÌÀÇ Æò±ÕÀº ÀÚ¿¬Ä¡°¡ ´ëÇյǴ °æ¿ì 0.009 ¡¾ 0.048À̾úÀ¸¸ç ÀÓÇöõÆ®ÀÇ °æ¿ì 0.026 ¡¾ 0.080, °¡°øÄ¡ÀÇ °æ¿ì¿¡ -0.025 ¡¾ 0.068À̾úÀ¸¸ç ¹«Ä¡¾ÇÀº -0.093 ¡¾ 0.171À¸·Î ³ªÅ¸³µ´Ù. ´ëÇյǴ ºÎÀ§°¡ ¹«Ä¡¾ÇÀÏ ¶§¿Í ÀÓÇöõÆ®ÀÏ ¶§¿¡ Åë°èÇÐÀûÀ¸·Î À¯ÀÇÇÑ Â÷ÀÌ°¡ ³ªÅ¸³µÀ¸¸ç ³ªÀÌ¿Í ¼ºº°, ¾Ç°ñ À§Ä¡¿¡ µû¸¥ ÇÁ·¢Å» ¼öÄ¡ º¯È­ Â÷ÀÌ´Â Åë°èÀûÀ¸·Î À¯ÀÇÇÏÁö ¾Ê¾Ò´Ù.

°á·Ð: ÀÓÇöõÆ® ½Ä¸³ ÈÄ ´ëÇյǴ ºÎÀ§°¡ ¹«Ä¡¾ÇÀÏ ¶§¸¦ Á¦¿ÜÇÑ ¼¼ Áý´Ü°£ ÇÁ·¢Å» ¼öÄ¡ º¯È­ Â÷ÀÌ´Â À¯ÀÇÇÏ°Ô ³ªÅ¸³ªÁö ¾Ê¾ÒÀ¸¸ç, ´ëÇյǴ ºÎÀ§°¡ ¹«Ä¡¾ÇÀÏ ¶§¿Í ÀÓÇöõÆ®ÀÏ ¶§ À¯ÀÇÇÑ Â÷ÀÌ°¡ ³ªÅ¸³µ´Ù. ±×¸®°í ȯÀÚÀÇ ³ªÀÌ¿Í ¼ºº°, ¾Ç°ñÀÇ À§Ä¡¿¡ µû¸¥ ÇÁ·¢Å» ¼öÄ¡ º¯È­ Â÷ÀÌ´Â À¯ÀÇÇÑ Â÷À̸¦ ³ªÅ¸³»Áö ¾Ê¾Ò´Ù.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to know whether there is significant difference of peri-implant bone density according to the state of antagonist region.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: 51 patients who had implant operation in Daejeon Dental Hospital of Wonkwang University participated in this study and total of 51 implants were analyzed. Implants were classified depending on opposing antagonist region, gender, age and location of jaw. The opposing antagonist region was divided into four groups; natural tooth, implant, pontic and edentulous region. Fractal analysis was performed using two periapical radiographs; one after implant placement and the other after 10 weeks following prosthetic restoration. The analysis was done by Image J. The data was statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey multiple comparison test.

RESULTS: The mean value of fractal difference was 0.009 ¡¾ 0.048 with opposing natural tooth, 0.026 ¡¾ 0.080 with opposing implant, 0.025 ¡¾ 0.068 with opposing pontic and 0.093 ¡¾ 0.171 with opposing edentulous area. There was a statistically significant difference in fractal value between opposing implant and opposing edentulous state. And there was no statistically significant difference according to age, gender and location of jaw.

CONCLUSION: There was no statistically significant difference between 3 groups except opposing edentulous region and there was a statistically significant difference between opposing implant and edentulous region. And there was no statistically significant difference according to age, gender and location of jaw.

Å°¿öµå

ÀÓÇöõÆ®; °ñ¹Ðµµ; ÇÁ·¢Å» ºÐ¼®; ´ëÇÕ ºÎÀ§
Implant; Bone density; Fractal analysis; Antagonist

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

 

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

KCI
KoreaMed