The objective and quantitative analysis of malocclusion - Part 2. Influence of malocclusion components to treatment difficulty

부정교합의 객관적 정량분석: Part 2. 부정교합 요소들의 치료난이도에 미치는 영향

  • Joo, Bo-Hoon (Departmet of Orthodontics, Samsung Medical Center, School of Medicine, Sungkyunkwan University) ;
  • Lee, Ki-Soo (Department of Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, Kyunghee University)
  • 주보훈 (성균관대학교 의과대학 삼성서울병원 치과진료부 교정과) ;
  • 이기수 (경희대학교 치과대학 교정학교실)
  • Published : 2005.02.01

Abstract

As one of the variations in growth and development of the craniofacial complex. malocclusion shows lack of concordance In the recognition and severity of malocclusion for dentists as well as the acceptance and need of orthodontic treatment for the patient The purposes of this study were 1) to examine the relationships between objective malocclusion severity aid subjective treatment difficulty. 2) to evaluate the effect of malocclusion components to the subjective perceived difficulty of treatment. 3) to establish the weighted values of malocclusion components to reflect the treatment difficulty 100 pairs of dental casts with the general characteristics of malocclusion. were selected from the orthodontic departments of Kyunghee University and Samsuug Medical Center. The severity of malocclusion was evaluated by the author with the PAR index The perceived treatment difficulty and the estimated treatment duration on these dental models were evaluated by 8 experienced orthodontists. The relationships between the objective malocclusion severity and the subjective treatment difficulty were statistically evaluated. and the weighted values of malocclusion components to reflect treatment difficulty were statistically formulated. There were significant relationships between objective malocclusion severity and subjective treatment difficulty The malocclusion components which significantly affected the treatment difficulty and their weighted values in parentheses were as follows upper anterior alignment(1). overbite (2). buccal occlusion (3) middline (4), and overjet (5). This study Provides the fundamental principle to evaluate the objective malocclusion severity which is reflected by the subjective treatment difficulty of Korean orthodontists.

부정교합의 진단과 치료계획 수립 및 치료방법에서 술자 간의 차이, 교정치료에서 환자간의 수용차이를 보이는 것은 부정교합의 인식 정도가 다양하기 때문이다 정부 및 민간 기관에서 보건정책의 계획과 집행은 체계적으로 진행된 과학적인 연구자료를 기초로 이루어져야 한다. 이 연구는 부정교합의 객관적 정량분석을 위한 마지막 단계로써 객관적인 부정교합의 경중도 (objective malocclusion severity) 와 주관적인 치료의 난이도 (subjective treatment difficulty)의 상관관계를 연구한 결과를 토대로 주관적인 치료의 난이도에 미치는 부정교합 구성요소의 영향을 평가한 후 치료의 난이도를 반영하는 부정교합 구성요소들의 가중치를 도출하고자 하였다. 이를 위하여 , 치아모형 100쌍을 이용하여 경험 있는 치과교정의 8명이 주관적으로 측정한 치료의 난이도와 동료 평가등급 지수를 사용하여 측정한 객관적인 부정교합의 경중도 간의 상관관계를 연구하고, 각 부정교합의 구성요소별 치료난이도에 미치는 영향을 조사하였다. 1) 이들간의 상관관계의 조사에서 객관적으로 계측한 부정교합의 경중도와 평가단의 치료 예상난이도 사이에는 유의한 관련성이 있었으며 2) 부정교합의 구성요소 별 치료 난이도의 관계를 구명하기 위하여, 주관적으로 느끼는 치료난이도의 인식에 있어 중요한 영향을 미치는 부정교합요소를 산정하였고, 3) 치료난이도를 반영하는 부정교합요소별 가중치를 산출하였다. 산출된 부정교합요소와 그 가중치는 전치돌출도가 5. 정중선일치가 4. 협측교합상태가 3, 전치피개도가 2 그리고 상악전치배열이 1 이었다. 4) 5개의 부정교합 요소와 가중치로 통계적인 검증을 거쳐 치료 난이도를 포함하는 부정교합 경중도의 객관적인 평가가 가능한 한국형 동료판정등급 가중지수를 개발하였다. 부정교합 요소에 대한 국내 치과교정의사들의 인식정도에 의하여 산출된 가중치를 이용한 동료판정등급 지수는 부정교합의 객관적 경중도 평가에 있어 치료의 주관적 난이도를 내포한 유용한 도구로서 국내 공공분야 및 전문분야에서 부정교합 난이도와 경중도의 객관적 그리고 정량적 평가를 가능하게 할 것으로 생각된다.

Keywords

References

  1. Foster TD, Menezes DM. The assessment of occlusal features for public health planning purposes. Am J Orthod 1976;69:83-90 https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(76)90100-7
  2. Baume LJ, Marechaux SC. Uniform methods for the epidemiologic assessment of malocclusion. Am J Orthod 1974;66:121-9 https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(74)90231-0
  3. Draker HL. Handicapping labiolingual deviations: a proposed index for public health purposes. Am J Orthod 1960;46:295-305 https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(60)90197-4
  4. Grainger RM. Orthodontic treatment Priority index. Vital Health Stat 1967;2:1-47
  5. Salzmann JA. Handcapping malocclusion assessment to establish treatment priority. Am J Orthod 1968;54:749-65 https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(68)90065-1
  6. Pickering EA, Vig PS. The occlusal index used to assess orthodontic treatment results. Br J Orthod 1975;2:47-51 https://doi.org/10.1179/bjo.2.1.47
  7. Berg R. Post-retention analysis of treatment problems and failures in 264 consecutively treated cases. Eur J Orthod 1979;1:55-68 https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/1.1.55
  8. Berg R, Fredlund A. Evaluation of orthodontic treatment results. Eur J Orthod 1981;3:181-5 https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/3.3.181
  9. Elderton RJ, Clark JD. Orthodontic treatment in the general dental service assesed by the occlusal index. Br J Orthod 1983;10:178-86 https://doi.org/10.1179/bjo.10.4.178
  10. Richmond S, Shaw WC, O'Brien KD, Roberts CF, Stephen C. The development of the par index (peer assessment rating): reliability and validity. Eur J Orthod 1992;14:125-39 https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/14.2.125
  11. DeGuzman L, Bahirael D, Vig KW, Wequant RJ, O'Brien K, et aI. The validation of the peer assessment rating index for malocclusion severity and treatment difficulty. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995;107:72-6
  12. 정수봉, 박영국. PAR 지수를 이용한 교정치료 결과에 관한 연구. 대치교정지 2001:31;393-401
  13. 김현혜, 이기헌, 김종철. 제1급 부정교합 환자에서 치료전후 PAR지수와 두부방사선 계측치의 변화. 대치교정지 1999;29:277-84
  14. 주보훈, 이기수. 부정교합의 객관적 정량분석 Part 1. 객관적 부정교합 경중도와 주관적인 치료난이도의 상관관계. 대치교정지 2005;35:60-68
  15. Nanda RS, Kierl MJ. Prediction of cooperation in orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1992;102:15-21 https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(92)70010-8
  16. Cassinelli AG, Firestone AR, Beck FM, Vig KWL. Factors associated with orthodontists' assessment of difficulty. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;123;497-502 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(02)57013-X
  17. Beckwith FR, Ackerman RJ Jr, Cobb CM, Tira DE. An evaluation of factors affecting duration of orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;115;439-47 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(99)70265-9
  18. Sergl HG, Klages U, Zentner A. Pain and discomfort during orthodontic treatment: Causative factors and effects on compliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;114;684-91 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(98)70201-X
  19. Robb SI, Sadowsky C, Schneider BJ, BeGole EA. Effectiveness and duration of orthodontic treatment in adults and adolescents. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;114;383-6 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(98)70182-9
  20. Angle EH. Classification of malocclusion. Dental Cosmos 1899;41:248-64
  21. Bjork A, Krebs Aa, Solow B. A method for epidemiological registration of malocclusion. Acta Odontol Scand 1964;22:27-41 https://doi.org/10.3109/00016356408993963
  22. Summers CJ. A system of identifying and scoring occlusal disorders. Am J Orthod 1971;59:552-67 https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(71)90002-9
  23. Shaw WC, O'Brien KD, Richmond S, Stephen CD, Brook PH. An epidemiologic appraisal of the benefits, risks and standards of orthodontic treatment in: Vig KW, Vig PS, eds. Clinical research as the basis of clinical practice. Monigaph 25, Craniofacial Growth Series. Center for Human Growth and Development, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1991
  24. Jamison HC, McMillan RS. An index of malocclusion for use in multiphasic screening and epidemiological investigations, Ala J Med Sci 1996;3:154-8
  25. Fleiss lL, Slakter MJ, Fishman SL, Park MH, Chilton NW. Interexaminer reliability in caries trials. J Dent Res 1979;58:604-9 https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345790580021101
  26. Guttu R, Spektor M. TMJ dysfunction: Etiology, diagnosis, treatment, review of literature. Gen Dent (May/June) 1981;29:226-32
  27. McNeill C. Craniomandibular (TMJ) disorders-the state of the art. part II: Accepted diagnostic and treatment modalities. J Prosthet Dent 1983;49:393-7 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(83)90284-6
  28. Sadowsky C, Polson AM. Temporomandibular disorders and functional occlusion after orthodontic treatment: Results of two long- term studies. Am J Orthod 1984;86:386-90 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9416(84)90030-7
  29. Dibbets JM, Van der Weele LT. Long-term effects of orthodontic treatment, including extraction, on signs and symptoms attributed to CMD. Eur J Orthod 1992;14:16-20 https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/14.1.16
  30. Eversole LR, Machado L. Temporomandibular joint internal derangements and associated neuromuscular disorders. JADA 1985;110:69-79
  31. Fricton JR, Schiffman EL. Reliability of craniomandibular index. J Dent Res 1986;65:1359-64 https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345860650111701
  32. Dworkin SF, LeResche L, DeRouen T. Reliability of clinicaJ measurement in temporomandibular disorders. Clin J Pain 1988;4:89-99 https://doi.org/10.1097/00002508-198806000-00005