Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

¹ßÄ¡, ºñ¹ßÄ¡¸¦ µ¿¹ÝÇÑ ±³Á¤Ä¡·á ÀüÈÄÀÇ ¾È¸ðÀÇ º¯È­¿¡ °üÇÑ ÀÎÁöµµ

The Esthetic Impact of Extraction and Nonextraction Treatments on Korean People

±¸°­È¸º¹ÀÀ¿ë°úÇÐÁö 2013³â 29±Ç 2È£ p.119 ~ 126
À̼¼Çü, Á¤µ¿È­, Â÷°æ¼®, ÀÌÁø¿ì, ÀÌ»ó¹Î,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
À̼¼Çü ( Lee Se-Hyeong ) - ´Ü±¹´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ ±³Á¤Çб³½Ç
Á¤µ¿È­ ( Jung Dong-Hwa ) - ´Ü±¹´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ ±³Á¤Çб³½Ç
Â÷°æ¼® ( Cha Kyung-Suk ) - ´Ü±¹´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ ±³Á¤Çб³½Ç
ÀÌÁø¿ì ( Lee Jin-Woo ) - ´Ü±¹´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ ±³Á¤Çб³½Ç
ÀÌ»ó¹Î ( Lee Sang-Min ) - ´Ü±¹´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ ±³Á¤Çб³½Ç

Abstract

±³Á¤ Ä¡·á ½Ã ¹ßÄ¡¿¡ ´ëÇÑ °³³äÀº ¼ö¾øÀÌ º¯È­µÇ¾î ¿Ô¾ú°í, ÇöÀçµµ ¹ßÄ¡ Ä¡·á¿Í ºñ¹ßÄ¡ Ä¡·á¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ±âÁØÀº º¯ÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Ù. º» ¿¬±¸¿¡¼­´Â Çѱ¹Àο¡¼­ ¹ßÄ¡, ºñ¹ßÄ¡ Ä¡·á¿¡ µû¸¥ ÁÖ°üÀû ¾È¸ð½É¹Ìº¯È­¸¦ Á¶»çÇÏ°í, ¶ÇÇÑ Æò°¡ÀÚ¿¡ µû¸¥ Ä¡·á°á°ú¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ÀνÄÀÇ Â÷À̸¦ ¾Ë¾Æº¸¾Ò´Ù. º» ¿¬±¸´Â ´Ü±¹´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇк´¿ø ±³Á¤ Ŭ¸®´Ð¿¡ ³»¿øÇÏ¿© ±³Á¤Ä¡·á¸¦ Á¾·áÇÑ È¯ÀÚ Áß, ¼Ò±¸Ä¡ ¹ßÄ¡ ȯÀÚ 59¸í, ºñ¹ßÄ¡ ȯÀÚ 60¸í, ÃÑ 119¸íÀ» ´ë»óÀ¸·Î ÇÏ¿´´Ù. Àü¹®°¡¿Í ºñÀü¹®°¡·Î ÀÌ·ç¾îÁø Æò°¡´Ü¿øÀÌ Ä¡·á Àü ÈÄ Ãø¹æ µÎºÎ¹æ»ç¼±»çÁøÀÇ ¿¬Á¶Á÷ Æ®·¹À̽ÌÀ» VAS Æò°¡ÇÏ¿© ±× °á°ú¸¦ Åë°èó¸® ÇÏ¿´´Ù. ±×¸®ÇÏ¿© µµÃâÇÑ °á·ÐÀº ´ÙÀ½°ú °°´Ù. 1. ¹ßÄ¡¿Í ºñ¹ßÄ¡ÀÇ Æò±Õ Á¡¼ö´Â ¹ßÄ¡°¡ 5.76, ºñ¹ßÄ¡°¡ 5.28·Î ¹ßÄ¡¸¦ ÇÑ°æ¿ìÀÇ ¾È¸ð °³¼± Á¤µµ°¡ ´õ ¾çÈ£ÇÏ°Ô ¹Þ¾Æµé¿©Á³´Ù. 2. ÀϹÝÀÎÀÇ Æò±Õ Á¡¼ö´Â 5.165, Àü¹®°¡ Áý´ÜÀº 5.875·Î ÀÌ ¿¬±¸¿¡¼­´Â ÀϹÝÀÎ Áý´Üº¸´Ù Àü¹®°¡ Áý´Ü¿¡¼­ ÀüüÀûÀ¸·Î ´õ ³ôÀº Æò°¡¸¦ ÇÏ¿´´Ù. 3. Àü¹®°¡ Áý´Ü¿¡¼­ ¹ßÄ¡¿Í ºñ¹ßÄ¡ ȯÀÚ¸¦ Æò°¡ÇÏ¿´À» ¶§, ¹ßÄ¡¸¦ ÇÑ °æ¿ì À¯ÀÇÇÏ°Ô ´õ ³ôÀº Á¡¼ö°¡ ³ª¿Ô´Ù. 4. ÀϹÝÀÎ Áý´Ü¿¡¼­ ¹ßÄ¡¿Í ºñ¹ßÄ¡ ȯÀÚ¸¦ Æò°¡ÇÏ¿´À» ¶§, ¹ßÄ¡¸¦ ÇÑ °æ¿ì ´õ ³ôÀº Á¡¼ö°¡ ³ª¿ÔÀ¸³ª À¯ÀǼº ÀÖ´Â Â÷ÀÌ´Â Á¸ÀçÇÏÁö ¾Ê´Â´Ù. 5. ºñ¹ßÄ¡ case¿¡¼­´Â Àü¹®°¡ Áý´ÜÀÌ ÀϹÝÀÎ Áý´Ü º¸´Ù À¯ÀǼº ÀÖ°Ô ´õ ³ôÀº Æò°¡¸¦ ³»·È´Ù. 6. ¹ßÄ¡ case¿¡¼­´Â ÀϹÝÀκ¸´Ù Àü¹®°¡ Áý´ÜÀÇ Á¡¼ö°¡ ´õ ³ô¾ÒÀ¸³ª À¯ÀǼº ÀÖ´Â °á°ú´Â ¾Æ´Ï´Ù.

The concept of extraction in orthodontic treatment has been changed many times. Even today, criteria of extraction or nonextraction is still changing. In this study, changes depending on the evaluator¡¯s perception of treatment outcomes were compared in both extraction and nonextraction cases. In this study, premolar extracted 59 patients and nonextracted 60 patients, totally 119 patients who finished orthodontic treatment in Dankook University Dental Hospital orthodontic clinic were enrolled. Evaluation sections made up of specialists and laypersons assessed soft tissue traced from lateral cephalometric radiographs with visual analogue scale before and after the treatment. And the results were statistically analyzed. Thus, the conclusions drawn are as follows: 1. Average score is 5.76 in extraction, which is larger than 5.28 of nonextraction case. Improvement of facial profile was more favorably accepted in extraction case. 2. 5.875 in the group of specialists were higher evaluation than 5.165 in the group of layperson. 3. Specialists gave significantly higher ratings in the extraction than nonextraction. 4. A higher rating in extraction case of the layperson group has no significant difference with nonextraction case. 5. Nonextraction patients were given higher ratings from specialist group. 6. A higher rating of specialist group in extraction case has no significant difference with layperson group.

Å°¿öµå

¹ßÄ¡; ºñ¹ßÄ¡; VASÆò°¡
Extraction; Nonextracion; Visual analogue scale

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

 

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

KCI