Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

¾Ç°üÀýÀÇ °æµÎ°³ ¹æ»ç¼±»çÁø¿¡¼­ ÇϾǰúµÎÀ§ Æò°¡¿¡ °üÇÑ ¿¬±¸

EVALUATION OF MANDIBULAR CONDYLE POSITION IN TMJ TRANSCRANIAL RADIOGRAPH

Ä¡°ú¹æ»ç¼± 1992³â 22±Ç 1È£ p.67 ~ 75
µµÁ¤ÁÖ, ±èÀº°æ,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
µµÁ¤ÁÖ (  ) - ´Ü±¹´ëÇб³ ÀÇ°ú´ëÇÐ ¿Ü°úÇб³½Ç
±èÀº°æ (  ) - ´Ü±¹´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ Ä¡°ú¹æ»ç¼±Çб³½Ç

Abstract

ÀúÀÚ´Â 4°³ÀÇ °ÇÁ¶µÎ°³°ñÀÇ 8°³ ¾Ç°üÀýºÎ¸¦ ¼öÁ÷°¢µµ 25µµ¿Í 3°¡Áö ¼öÆò°¢µµ, Áï, 0µµ, 5
µµ, °³Àκ° °¢µµ·Î ÃÔ¿µÇÑ °æµÎ°³¹æ»ç¼±»çÁø°ú °³Àκ° ´ÜÃþ ¹æ»ç¼±»çÁøÀ» ÃÔ¿µÇÏ¿© ÃÑ 32¸Å
ÀÇ ¾Ç°üÀý ¹æ»ç¼±»çÁø¿¡¼­ °úµÎÀ§Ä¡°ü°è¸¦ °´°üÀû ¹× ÁÖ°üÀû ÃøÁ¤¹æ¹ý¿¡ µû¶ó °¢°¢ ÃøÁ¤,
ºÐ¼®ÇÑ ÈÄ Åë°èó¸®ÇÏ¿© ´ÙÀ½°ú °°Àº °á·ÐÀ» ¾ò¾ú´Ù.
1. 3°¡ÀÚ °æµÎ°³ ¹æ»ç¼±»çÁø±ºÁß °³Àκ° °¢µµ±º¿¡¼­ ´ÜÃþ ¹æ»ç¼±»çÁø±º°úÀÇ ÀÏÄ¡À²ÀÌ °´
°üÀû, ÁÖ°üÀû ÃøÁ¤¹æ¹ý¿¡¼­ °øÈ÷ °¡Àå ³ô°Ô ³ªÅ¸³µ´Ù.
2. 3°¡Áö °æµÎ°³ ¹æ»ç¼±»çÁø±º°ú ´ÜÃþ ¹æ»ç¼±»çÁø±º°úÀÇ »ó°ü°ü°è´Â °´°üÀû ÃøÁ¤¹æ¹ý¿¡¼­
°³Àκ° °¢µµ±º°ú ´ÜÃþ ¹æ»ç¼±»çÁø±º°£¿¡¼­ 0.979·Î °¡Àå ³ô¾Ò´Ù(p¡Â0.01).
3. ±×·¯³ª »óÀÇ ¼±¸íµµ´Â °³Àκ° °æµÎ°³ ¹æ»ç¼±»çÁø±ºÀÌ 0µµ, 5µµ±ºº¸´Ù ºÒ·®ÇÏ¿´´Ù.

Transcranial radiograph is widely used in the diagnosis of craniomandibular disorder
because it can be used by the dentist with relative ease in spite of image distortion.
But correct information can be obtained only when one know the image change by
projection angulation.
The author compared the condyle position in the 3 groups of transcranial radiographs
(horizontal angulation - 0¡£, 5¡£, individualized) with that in the individualized corrected
lateral tomogram by objective and subjective evaluation methods.
The results were as follows:
1. Among 3 transcranial groups, the condyle position in individualized group showed
the highest concordance rate with that in the tomogram group in objective and
subjective evaluation methods.
2. Correlation coefficient between individualized transcranial group and tomogram
group in objective evaluation method was highest (P¡Â0.01).
3. Image clarity in individualized transcranial group was worse than that of the other
two transcranial groups.

Å°¿öµå

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

  

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸