Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

Æijë¶ó¸¶»çÁø¿¡ ÀÇÇÑ ÃøµÎÇϾǰüÀýÀÇ ¿¬±¸

A STUDY OF THE TEMPOROMANDIBULAR JOINT ON THE PANTOMOGRAPH

Ä¡°ú¹æ»ç¼± 1988³â 18±Ç 1È£ p.167 ~ 176
¾ç¹®È£, ±èűÇ,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
¾ç¹®È£ (  ) - °æÈñ´ëÇб³
±èűǠ(  ) - °æÈñ´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ Ä¡°ú¹æ»ç¼±Çб³½Ç

Abstract

ÀúÀÚ´Â ÃøµÎÇϾǰüÀýÀÇ ±âÃÊÀû ¹æ»ç¼±ÃÔ¿µ¹ýÀ¸·Î ÀÌ¿ëµÉ ¼ö ÀÖ´Â Æijë¶ó¸¶»çÁøÀ¸·Î ÃøµÎ
ÇϾǰüÀýÀÇ ±¸¼º¼ººÐ°ú Ä¡¿­,±×¸®°í µÎ°³¾È¸é°ñ°ÝÀÇ ÇüŸ¦ °üÂûÇÏ°í ÃøµÎÇϾǰüÀýÀÇ Áõ»ó
±º°ú Á¤»ó±º°£¿¡ °¢°¢ÀÇÇüÅÂÀû ƯÀ̼ºÀ» ÆľÇÇÒ ¸ñÀûÀ¸·Î 18¡­23¼¼ÀÇ °¢ ±º 40¸ÅÀÇ Æijë¶ó
¸¶»çÁøÀ» °èÃø ¡¤ºÐ¼®ÇÏ¿© ´ÙÀ½°ú °°Àº °á°ú¸¦ ¾ò¾ú´Ù.
1. ÇϾǰúµÎÀÇ ÇüÅ´ Á¤»ó±º 58.75%, Áõ»ó±º 55.0%·Î Àü¡¤ÈĹæÀ¸·Î ¿Ï¸¸ÇÑ °æ»ç¸¦ ÀÌ·ç
´Â 1ÇüÀÌ °¡Àå ¸¹¾ÒÀ¸¸ç Áõ»ó±º¿¡¼­´Â 18¿¹(45%)°¡ Á¡¤¿ìÃø ÇüÅÂÀÇ Â÷ÀÌ°¡ ÀÖ¾ú´Ù.
2.Á¤»ó±º¿¡ ºñÇØ Áõ»óÆÇ¿¡¼­ °úµÎÀÇ ÆøÀº ÀÛÀ¸¸ç(P(0.05), °úµÎ-ÇϾÇÁö³ôÀÌ¿¡ ´ëÇÑ °úµÎ³ô
ÀÌÀÇ ºñÀ²Àº Å« °æÇâÀÌ ÀÖ°í, °úµÎÆøÀÇ ºñ´ëĪ¼ºµµ ÀÎÁ¤µÇ¾ú´Ù(P<0.05).
3. ÁßÀýÄ¡¼öÁ÷ÇÇ°³·®Àº Á¤»ó±º°ú Áõ»ó±º °£¿¡ Å« Â÷À̸¦ º¸ÀÌÁö ¾Ê¾ÒÁö¸¸ »óÇϾÇÁßÀýÄ¡Áß
½É¼±º¯À§ ·®Àº Áõ»ó±º¿¡¼­ Å©°Ô ³ªÅ¸³µ´Ù(P<0.05).
4. ±³ÇÕÆò¸é°æ»çµµ´Â Áõ»ó±ºÀÌ ±Þ°æ»ç¸¦ ÀÌ·ç´Â °æÇâÀ» º¸ÀÌ°í, °üÀýÀÀ±âÈĹæ°æ»çµµ¿Í °ú
µÎ°æÀåÃà°æ»çµµ´Â Á¤»ó±º¿¡¼­ ÄÇÀ¸¸ç(P<0.005, P<0.05), ¾çÃø¼º Áõ»ó±º¿¡¼­ Á¿ìÃø°£ÀÇ Â÷ÀÌ
°¡ °¡Àå ÄÇ´Ù.
5. Á¤»ó±º°ú Áõ»ó±º ¸ðµÎ °üÀýÀÀ±âÈĹæ°æ»çµµ¿Í °úµÎ°æÀåÃà°æ»çµµ°£¿¡ »ó°ü°ü°è°¡, °úµÎÀÇ
Æø°ú ÆÇÀýÀÀ±âÈĹæ°æ»çµµ °£¿¡ ¿ª»ó°ü°ü°è°¡ ÀÖ¾ú´Ù(P<0.05).
#ÃÊ·Ï#
This study was designed to evaluate the morphology of the temporomandibular joint
components and dentofacial characteristics of patients with clicking and painful
temporomadibular joint.
The materials consisted of 80 conventional pantomographs in normal an symptomatic
individuals aged 18-23 and divided into 2 groups by symptom of temporomandibutar
joint.
The results were as follows;
1. In morphologic analysis of condylar head, type I (anterior, posterior smooth curve)
was most dominant in both group (58.75%,55.0%) and asymmetrical corldylar. shape was
predominant in symptomatic group (18.cases,45%).
2. In symptomatic group, the condylar width were slightly lesser and the ratio of
condylar height to height of condyle-ramus were larger than those of normal group.
3. Vertical overlap of central incisor of symptomatic group was slightly larger than
that of normal group.
There was significant differences between each group in marldibular midline deviation.
4. The symptomatic group tended to steep mandibular plane angle and the degree of
condylar path and condylar axis of normal group were target than those of symptomatic
group.
5. The condylar width was inversely correlated with inclination of condylar path and
inclination of condylar path was correlated with condylar axis in both groups.

Å°¿öµå

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

  

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸