Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

¾Ç°üÀýÀå¾Ö Áø´Ü¿¡ À־ µ¿½Ã´ÙÃþ°³º°È­Ãø¹æ´ÜÃþÃÔ¿µÀÇ Áø´ÜÈ¿°ú

THE DIAGNOSTIC EFFECT OF THE SIMULTANEOUS MULTIFILM INDIVIDUALIZED LATERAL TOMOGRAPHY IN THE DIAGNOSIS OF THE TEMPOROMANDIBULAR DISORDERS

Ä¡°ú¹æ»ç¼± 1991³â 21±Ç 2È£ p.235 ~ 248
ÀÌ¿ì½Ä, ¹Ú´ö¿µ,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
ÀÌ¿ì½Ä (  ) - ¼­¿ï´ëÇб³ ÀÇ°ú´ëÇÐ ¾È°úÇб³½Ç
¹Ú´ö¿µ (  ) - ¼­¿ï´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ Ä¡°ú¹æ»ç¼±Çб³½Ç

Abstract

¿¬±¸´ë»ó ³²ÀÚ 10¸í ¿©ÀÚ 19¸í ÃÑ 29¸íÀÇ È¯ÀÚ¿¡°Ô À־ 30¾Ç°üÀý¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ¹æ»ç¼±»çÁøÀ»
ºÐ¼®ÇÏ¿© ´ÙÀ½°ú °°Àº °á°ú¸¦ ¾ò¾ú´Ù.
1. Ãø»çÀ§°æµÎ°³»çÁø°ú 5¸ÅÀÇ µ¿½Ã´ÙÃþ°³º°È­´ÜÃþ»çÁø¿¡¼­ÀÇ ÇϾǰúµÎÀ§ºÐÆ÷´Â °¢ »çÁø°£
¿¡ À¯ÀÇÇÑ Â÷ÀÌ°¡ ÀÖ¾úÀ¸¸ç (p<0.05) Ãø»çÀ§°æµÎ°³»çÁøÀÇ ÇϾǰúµÎÀ§ ¹× °úµÎÀ§ ºÐÆ÷´Â ÇÏ
¾Ç°úµÎÀÇ ³»ÃøºÎÀ§°¡ ÃÔ¿µµÈ ´ÜÃþ»óº¸´Ù ¿ÜÃøºÎÀ§°¡ ÃÔ¿µµÈ ´ÜÃþ»ó¿¡¼­ ´õ ºñ½ÁÇÏ¿´°í µ¿½Ã
´ÙÃþ°³º°È­Ãø¹æ´ÜÃþ»çÁø¿¡¼­ÀÇ °úµÎÀ§ºÐÆ÷´Â ¿ÜÃø¿¡¼­ ³»ÃøÀ¸·Î °¥¼ö·Ï µ¿½ÉÀ§°¡ Àû¾ú´Ù.
2. Ãø»çÀ§°æµÎ°³»çÁø°ú ºñ±³½Ã 5¸ÅÀÇ µ¿½Ã´ÙÃþ°³º°È­Ãø¹æ´ÜÃþ»çÁø ¸ðµÎ¿¡¼­ °úµÎÀ§°¡ °°
°Ô ³ªÅ¸³­ °æ¿ì´Â 10·Ê(33.3%)¿´À¸¸ç ÇÑ ¸Åµµ °°Áö ¾ÊÀº °æ¿ìµµ 3·Ê(10.0%)°¡ ÀÖ¾ú´Ù.
3. ¿¬±¸µÈ 30¾Ç°üÀýÁß °°Àº ¾Ç°üÀýÀ» ÃÔ¿µÇÑ 5¸ÅÀÇ µ¿½Ã´ÙÃþ°³º°È­Ãø¹æ´ÜÃþ»çÁø°£¿¡¼­ÀÇ
°úµÎÀ§´Â 5¸Å ¸ðµÎ ÀÏÄ¡ÇÏ´Â °æ¿ì°¡ 13·Ê(43.3%)¿´À¸¸ç, 4¸Å°¡ ÀÏÄ¡ÇÏ´Â °æ¿ì°¡ 11·Ê
(37.7%), 3¸Å°¡ ÀÏÄ¡ÇÏ´Â °æ¿ì°¡ 6·Ê(20.0%)·Î ÃÖ¼ÒÇÑ 3¸ÅÀ̻󿡼­ ¼­·Î ÀÏÄ¡ÇÏ¿´´Ù.
4. Åë»óÀûÀÎ ¾Ç°üÀý¹æ»ç¼±»çÁø¿¡¼­ °ñº¯È­°¡ °üÂûµÇÁö ¾Ê´Â °æ¿ì µ¿½Ã´ÙÃþ°³º°È­Ãø¹æ´ÜÃþ
»çÁø¿¡¼­µµ °ñº¯È­¸¦ ¹ß°ßÇÏÁö ¸øÇßÀ¸³ª Åë»óÀûÀÎ ¾Ç°üÀý¹æ»ç¼±»çÁø¿¡¼­ °ñº¯È­°¡ °üÂûµÇ´Â
°æ¿ì µ¿½Ã´ÙÃþ°³º°È­Ãø¹æ´ÜÃþ»çÁø¿¡¼­µµ °üÂûµÇ¾úÀ¸¸ç µ¿½Ã´ÙÃþ°³º°È­Ãø¹æ´ÜÃþ»çÁøÀº ÇϾÇ
°úµÎÀÇ °ñº¯È­À§Ä¡, ¸ð¾ç, Á¤µµµîÀ» 3Â÷¿øÀûÀ¸·Î ÀÌÇØÇÏ´Â µ¥ µµ¿òÀÌ µÇ¾ú´Ù.
#ÃÊ·Ï#
This study was designed to evaluate the diagnostic effect of the simulatneous
multifilm individualized lateral tomography in the diagnosis of the temporomandibular
disorders. The subjects consisted of 29 patients with symptoms of the
temporomandibular disorders. The panoramic view, oblique lateral transcranial radiograph
(OLTC) (Hirozontal angulation 0¡Æ, Vertieal angulation 29¡Æ), submentovertex view, and
simultaneous multifilm individualized lateral homographs (SMFI) in centric occlusion
(2.5mm thickness difference, 5 layers) were taken for the patients. This study compared
the findings from each radiographs in the determining of mandibular condylar position
with dual linear measurement of the subjective closest posterior and subjective closest
anterior interarticular space and in the determining of bony changes on the studied 30
temporomandibular joints (TMJ) with symptoms of the temporomandibular disorders.
The results were as follows :
1. The distribution of condylar position of OLTC and 5 layers of SMFI depended on
the radiographs (p < 0.05). The condylar position and the distribution of condylar
position of OLTC were more similar to lateral sections of the SMFI than mesial
sections, and in the distribution of the condylar position of SMFI, the more lateral
sections of SMFI, the more concentric positions.
2. There were 10 cases in which all layers showed the same condylar position as that
of OLTC. There were 3 cases in which no layers showed the same condylar position as
that of OLTC.
3. In the SMFI of 30 Temporomandibularjoints studied, there is 13 cases in which all
five layers represented the same condylar position in the same TMJ and 11 cases in
which 4 layers represented the same condylar position in the same TMJ and 6 cases in
which 3 layers represented the same condylar position in the same TMJ So at least 3
layers of SMFI reprosented same condylar position in the same TMJ.
4. The bony changes were not detected in conventional radiographs on the
temporomandibular joint and the bony changes were not detected in simultaneous
multifilm individualized lateral tomographs. The bony changes were detected in
conventional radiographs on the temporomandibular joint and the bony changes were
detected in simultaneous multifilm individualized lateral tomographs.
SMFI provided a reams for a three dimensional visualization of the shape, the position
and the extent of bony changes of TMJ.

Å°¿öµå

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

  

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸