대한치과교정학회지 (The korean journal of orthodontics)

대한치과교정학회 (The Korean Association Of Orthodontists)
권호 표지

발치 및 비발치 치료 전후 악궁 폭경의 변화

Change in arch width in extraction vs nonextraction treatment

  • 전지윤 (경희대학교 치의학전문대학원 교정학교실) ;
  • 김수정 (경희대학교 치의학전문대학원 교정학교실) ;
  • 강승구 (경희대학교 치의학전문대학원 교정학교실) ;
  • 박영국 (경희대학교 치의학전문대학원 교정학교실)
  • Jeon, Ji-Yun (Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyung Hee University) ;
  • Kim, Su-Jung (Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyung Hee University) ;
  • Kang, Seung-Goo (Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyung Hee University) ;
  • Park, Young-Guk (Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyung Hee University)
  • 발행 : 2007.02.28
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

일반적으로 네 개의 소구치 발치를 동반한 교정치료는 비발치 치료에 비하여 치열궁 폭경을 더 좁게 만들어, 미소시 구각 부위에 어두운 구강 내 공간, 소위 buccal corridor를 형성함으로써 비심미적인 결과를 낳는다는 견해가 있다. 한편 발치 치료는 오히려 하악의 견치간 폭경을 증가시키며, 비발치 치료와 비교하여 악궁 폭경의 변화에 있어 유의한 차이를 보이지 않는다는 상반된 연구결과가 존재한다. 이 연구는 발치 치료와 비발치 치료 시 악궁 폭경의 변화를 관찰하여 실제적으로 발치 치료가 미소 시 협측 분절에 미치는 영향을 규명하고자 시행되었다. 경희대학교 치과병원 교정과에서 치료받은 환자 중 전악에 고정식 장치를 사용하여 네 개의 제1소구치 발치 치료를 받은 30명과 비발치로 치료한 30명의 치료 전후 연구 모형을 비교 분석한 결과 악궁 폭경의 변화는 다음과 같다. 네 개의 제1소구치 발치 치료 시 비발치 치료와 비교하여 상악의 견치간 폭경 변화는 유의한 차이가 없었으나, 하악의 견치간 폭경은 유의하게 더 많이 증가하였다. 구치간 폭경 변화는 상악과 하악 치열궁 모두에서 두 군 간에 유의한 차이가 나타났는데 발치군에서 구치간 폭경이 감소한 반면에 비발치군에서는 구치간 폭경이 증가하였다. 미소시 노출되는 악궁 폭경은 비발치군보다 발치군에서 더 크게 나타났으며, 이는 치열궁 폭경의 축소가 발치 치료 시 당연히 예상되는 결과가 아님을 시사한다.

Objective: This study was performed to investigate the influences of extraction and nonextraction treatment on smile esthetics by measuring dental arch width changes. Methods: Pretreatment and posttreatment study models of 30 first premolar extraction cases and 30 nonextraction cases were randomly selected to determine whether extraction treatment results in narrow dental arches, and a consequent unaesthetic smile. Arch widths were measured from the cusp tips of the canines and the first molars. Posterior arch widths were also measured at a constant arch depth derived by averaging randomly chosen nonextraction models. Results: The intercanine widths increased significantly in the extraction sample, whereas the intermolar widths decreased significantly. The arch width at a standardized arch depth was significantly wider in the extraction subjects. Conclusion: These results elucidate that constriction in arch width is not a materialized consequence of extraction treatment. It leads to postulate that an esthetically compromising effect from narrow dental arches on smile is hardly anticipated with extraction treatment.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Angle EH. Treatment of malocclusion of the teeth and fhctures of the maxillae. 7th ed. Philadelphia: SS White Manufacturing; 1907
  2. Strang RHW. A textbook of orthodontia. Ist ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Lea & Febiger; 1933
  3. Case CS. The question of extraction in orthodontia. Am J Orthod 1964;50:660-91 https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(64)90106-X
  4. Grieve GW. Analysis of malocclusion based upon the forward translation theory. Am J Orthod Oral Surg 1941;27:323-8 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0096-6347(41)90521-5
  5. Grieve GW. Anatomical and clinical problems involved where extraction is indicated in orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Oral Surg 1944;30:437-43 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0096-6347(44)90040-2
  6. Tweed CH. The application of the principles of the edgewise arch in the treatment of malocclusions. Angle Orthod 1941;11:5-67
  7. Tweed CH. Indications for extraction of teeth in orthodontic procedure. Am J Orthod Oral Surg 1944;30:22-45
  8. Creekmore TD. Inhibition or stimulation of the vertical growth of the facial complex, its significance to treatment. Angle Orthod 1967;37: 285-97
  9. Poulton DR. The influence of extraoral traction. Am J Orthod 1967;53:8-18 https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(67)90135-2
  10. Kuhn W. Control of anterior vertical dimension and proper selection of extraoral anchorage. Angle Orthod 1968;38:340-9
  11. Harvold EP, Vargervik K. Morphogenetic response to activator treatment. Am J Orthod 1971;60:478-90 https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(71)90114-X
  12. Pfeiffer JP, Grobety D. Simultaneous use of cervical appliance and activator: an orthopedic approach to fixed appliance therapy. Am J Orthod 1972;61:353-73 https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(72)90300-4
  13. Frankel R Decrowdmg during eruption under the screening influence of vestibular shields. Am J Orthod 1974;65:372-406 https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(74)90271-1
  14. Buonocore MG. Principles of adhesive retention and adhesive restorative materials. J Am Dent Assoc 1963;67:382-91 https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1963.0301
  15. Miura F, Nakagawa K, Masuhara E. New direct bonding system for plastic brackets. Am J Orthod 1971;59:350-61 https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(71)90231-4
  16. Cueto HI. A little bit of history: the first direct bonding in orthodontia. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1990;98:276-7 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(05)81606-3
  17. Brodie AG. Does scientific investigation support the extraction of teeth in orthodontic treatment? Am J Orthod Oral Surg 1944;30:449-60
  18. Pollock HC. The extraction debate of 1911 by Case, Dewey, and Cryer. Am J Orthod 1964;50:656-91 https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(64)90105-8
  19. Baumrind S, Korn EL, Boyd RL, Maxwell R. The decision to extract: Part I-intercliniciau agreement. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1996;109:297-309 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(96)70153-1
  20. Witzig JW, Spahl RJ. The clinical management of basic maxillofacial orthopedic appliances. Vol 1. Mechanics. Littleton ,Ma: PSG Publishing Co; 1987. p. 1-13
  21. Dierkes JM. The beauty of the face: an orthodontic perspective. J Am Dent Assoc 1987;Spec No:89E-95E
  22. Johnson DK, Smith RJ. Smile esthetics after orthodontic treatment with and without extraction of four first premolars. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995;108: 162-7 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(95)70079-X
  23. Kim E, Gianelly AA. Extraction vs nonextraction: arch widths and smile esthetics. Angle Orthod 2003;73:354-8
  24. Hulsey CM. An esthetic evaluation of lip-teeth relationships present in the smile. Am J Orthod 1970;57:132-44 https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(70)90260-5
  25. Paquette DE, Beattie JR Johnston LE Jr. A long-term comparison of nonextraction and premolar extraction edgewise therapy in 'borderline' Class II patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1992;102:1-14 https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(92)70009-Y
  26. Luppanapomlarp S, Johnston LE Jr. The effects of premolarextraction: a long-term comparison of outcomes in 'clear-cut' extraction and nonextraction Class II patients. Angle Orthod 1993;63: 257-72
  27. Mackley RJ. An evaluation of smiles before and after orthodontic treatment. Angle Orthod 1993;63: 183-9
  28. Kokich VO Jr, Kiyak HA, Shapiro PA. Comparing the perception of dentists and lay people to altered dental esthetics. J Esthet Dent 1999;11:311-24 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8240.1999.tb00414.x
  29. Sarver DM. The importance of incisor positioning in the esthetic smile: the smile arc. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001;120:98-111 https://doi.org/10.1067/mod.2001.114301
  30. Sarver DM. Ackerman MB. Dynamic smile visualization and quantification: Part 2. Smile analysis and treatment strategies. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;124:116-27 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(03)00307-X
  31. Tjan AH, Miller GD, The JG. Some esthetic factors in a smile. J Prosthet Dent 1984;51 :24-8 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(84)80097-9
  32. Dunn WJ, Murchison DF, Broome JC. Esthetics: patients' perceptions of dental attractiveness. J Prosthodont 1996;5:166-71 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.1996.tb00292.x
  33. Turpin DL. Editor's Choice. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;130:A12 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.09.023
  34. Dahlberg G. Statistical methods for medical and biological students. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd; 1940. p. 122-32
  35. Gianelly AA. Arch width after extraction and nonextraction treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;123:25-8 https://doi.org/10.1067/mod.2003.57
  36. Bishara SE, Cummins DM, Zaher AR. Treatment and posttreatment changes in patients with Class II Division I malocclusion after extraction and nonextraction treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997;111:18-27 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(97)70297-X