Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

¾È¸é°ñ°Ý À¯Çü¿¡ µû¸¥ ÇÏ¾Ç ÀüÄ¡ Ä¡Á¶°ñÀÇ ÇüÅ Â÷ÀÌ: Cone-beam CT¸¦ ÀÌ¿ëÇÑ Á¤·®Àû Æò°¡

Morphological difference of symphysis according to various skeletal types using cone-beam computed tomography

±¸°­È¸º¹ÀÀ¿ë°úÇÐÁö 2014³â 30±Ç 3È£ p.215 ~ 222
±ÇÇöÁø, ÀüÀ±½Ä, ±è¹ÎÁö,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
±ÇÇöÁø ( Kwon Hyun-Jin ) - ÀÌÈ­¿©ÀÚ´ëÇб³ ÀÓ»óÄ¡ÀÇÇдëÇпø
ÀüÀ±½Ä ( Chun Youn-Sic ) - ÀÌÈ­¿©ÀÚ´ëÇб³ ÀÓ»óÄ¡ÀÇÇдëÇпø
±è¹ÎÁö ( Kim Min-Ji ) - ÀÌÈ­¿©ÀÚ´ëÇб³ ÀÓ»óÄ¡ÀÇÇдëÇпø

Abstract

¸ñÀû: º» ¿¬±¸´Â ¼öÆòÀû, ¼öÁ÷Àû ¾È¸é °ñ°Ý À¯Çü¿¡ µû¸¥ ÇÏ¾Ç ÀüÄ¡ºÎ Ä¡Á¶°ñÀÇ ÇüÅÂÇÐÀû Â÷À̸¦ ¾Ë¾Æº¸±â À§ÇÏ¿© ½ÃÇàÇÏ¿´´Ù.

¿¬±¸ Àç·á ¹× ¹æ¹ý: 40¸íÀÇ Cone-beam computed tomography (Cone-beam CT)¸¦ ¼±º°ÇÏ¿©, 4°³ ±ºÀ¸·Î ºÐ·ùÇÏ¿´´Ù. Cone-beam CT ÀڷḦ ÀÌ¿ëÇÏ¿© ÇÏ¾Ç ÀüÄ¡ºÎ Ä¡Á¶°ñÀÇ ºÎÇÇ(mm3), ÇÏ¾Ç 4ÀýÄ¡ Ä¡Ãà ±âÁØ ½Ã»ó´Ü¸éÀÇ ´Ü¸éÀû(ÃÑ ´Ü¸éÀû, Çظé°ñ ´Ü¸éÀû: mm2), ¹é¾Ç¹ý¶û°æ°è(cemento-enamel junction: CEJ) 2 mm, 3 mm ¾Æ·¡ ¼ø, ¼³Ãø Ä¡Á¶°ñ µÎ²²¸¦ ÃøÁ¤ÇÏ¿´´Ù. Åë°èºÐ¼®Àº GLM, Kruskal-Wallis test and Tukey HSD¸¦ »ç¿ëÇÏ¿´´Ù.

°á°ú: ÃøÀýÄ¡ÀÇ ¹é¾Ç¹ý¶û°æ°è 2 mm, 3 mm ÇÏ¹æ ¼³Ãø Ä¡Á¶°ñ µÎ²²°¡, Class I low angle±ºÀÌ ³ª¸ÓÁö 3±º º¸´Ù µÎ²¨¿ü´Ù (P < 0.05). ÇÏ¾Ç ÀüÄ¡ Ä¡Á¶°ñÀÇ ºÎÇÇ, Àüü Ä¡Á¶°ñ ¹× Çظé°ñÀÇ ´Ü¸é¿¡¼­ÀÇ Åë°èÀûÀ¸·Î À¯ÀÇÇÑ Â÷ÀÌ´Â ¾ø¾ú´Ù.

°á·Ð: Class I low angle±ºÀº Class II high angle±º¿¡ ºñÇØ ÇÏ¾Ç ÀüÄ¡ Ä¡Á¶°ñÀÇ ¼³Ãø ºÎÀ§°¡ ´õ µÎ²®´Ù.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to investigate differences between the morphology of the mandibular symphysis and four facial skeletal types.

Materials and Methods: 40 cone-beam computed tomographies were selected and classified in to 4 groups according to their vertical and anterior-posterior skeletal patterns. The bone volume (mm3) of the symphysis, the cross sectional area corresponding to the 4 mandibular incisors¡¯ axis: the cross sectional area of total bone (mm2), the area of the cancellous bone (mm2) and the thickness (mm) of labial and lingual alveolar bone at 2 mm, 3 mm under the cemento-enamel junction (CEJ) were measured. General linear model (GLM), Kruskal-Wallis test and Tukey honestly significant difference (HSD) test were subsequently used for statistical analysis.

Results: The lingual cortical bone thickness of the lateral incisors at 2, 3 mm under CEJ was greater in the Class I low angle group than the other 3 groups (P < 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences in the volume of the mandibular incisor bony support, cross-sectional area of total bone and cancellous bone at the mandibular incisor¡¯ axis.
Conclusion: Patients in Class I, low angle group have a thicker lingual mandibular symphysis than Class I, high angle patients.

Å°¿öµå

¾È¸é°ñ°ÝÇüÅÂ; ÇϾÇÀüÄ¡ Ä¡Á¶°ñ; CBCT; ¼³ÃøÄ¡Á¶°ñ ºÎÇÇ
facial skeletal type; mandibular symphysis; CBCT; volume of mandibular symphysis

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

 

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

KCI