대한치과교정학회지 (The korean journal of orthodontics)

  • 제40권5호
  • /
  • Pages.334-341
  • /
  • 2010
  • /
  • 2234-7518(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2005-372X(eISSN)
대한치과교정학회 (The Korean Association Of Orthodontists)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

한국인과 이집트인의 치열궁 형태 비교

Comparison of arch form between Koreans and Egyptians

  • 장갑수 (가톨릭대학교 임상치의학대학원 교정학과) ;
  • 석경은 (가톨릭대학교 서울성모병원 치과교정과) ;
  • ;
  • 김윤지 (가톨릭대학교 서울성모병원 치과교정과) ;
  • 김성훈 (경희대학교 치과대학 교정학교실) ;
  • 국윤아 (가톨릭대학교 서울성모병원 치과교정과)
  • Jang, Kab-Soo (Department of Orthodontics, Graduate School of Clinical Dental Science, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Suk, Kyung-Eun (Department of Orthodontics, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Bayome, Mohamed (Department of Orthodontics, Graduate School of Clinical Dental Science, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Kim, Yoon-Ji (Department of Orthodontics, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Kim, Seong-Hun (Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyunghee University) ;
  • Kook, Yoon-Ah (Department of Orthodontics, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea)
  • 투고 : 2009.11.03
  • 심사 : 2010.05.25
  • 발행 : 2010.10.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

본 연구의 목적은 한국인과 이집트인의 Angle씨 I급, II급, III급 부정교합군에서 하악치열궁의 크기와 형태적 특성을 상호 비교 분석하고자 하였다. 한국인 부정교합자 368명(114 Class I, 119 Class II, and 135 Class III)과 이집트인 부정교합자 94명(35 Class I, 32 Class II and 27 Class III)을 대상으로 하였다. 치료 전 하악 치열 모형을 복사한 사진에서 13개의 인접한 접촉면에서 가장 협측에 위치한 점들을 좌표화한 후 하악 치아의 두께 자료에 근거하여 임상브라켓 점들을 설정하였고 4개의 선 계측과 2개의 비율을 측정하였다. 치열궁 형태를 tapered, ovoid, squared의 3가지로 분류하여 두 인종 간 분포 특성에 관하여 비교하였다. 이집트인은 한국인보다 대구치 간 폭경과 견치 간 폭경이 유의성 있게 좁았으며 ($p$ < 0.001), 대구치 간 장경과 견치 간 장경이 더 짧았다 ($p$ < 0.001). 이집트인에서는 3가지의 치열궁 형태가 동등한 비율로 나타났으나 ($p$ = 0.46), 한국인에서는 square arch form (46.7%)이 가장 빈번하게 나타났고, tapered arch form이 가장 적게 나타났다(18.8%). 본 연구의 결과는 기성품의 초탄성 호선을 선택할 때 인종 간의 차이에 대한 유익한 정보를 제공할 수 있을 것으로 생각된다.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate morphologic differences in the mandibular arch between Egyptian and Korean subjects. Methods: The Egyptian sample consisted of 94 mandibular casts (35 Class I, 32 Class II and 27 Class III). The Korean sample consisted of 462 mandibular casts (114 Class I, 119 Class II, and 135 Class III). The most facial portion of 13 proximal contact areas was digitized from photocopied images of the mandibular dental arches. Clinical bracket points were calculated for each tooth. The subjects were grouped according to arch form to compare the frequency distribution of the 3 arch forms between the ethnic groups in each Angle classification. Results: Egyptians had significantly narrower intermolar and intercanine widths ($p$ < 0.001), and shallower intermolar and intercanine depths ($p$ < 0.001) than Koreans. There was an even frequency distribution of the 3 arch forms within the Egyptian group ($p$ = 0.46). However, in the Korean group, the most frequent arch form was the square arch form (46.7%), while the frequency of the tapered arch form was significantly lower (18.8%). Conclusions: These results might provide helpful information in evaluating morphologic differences between ethnic groups in selection of preformed superelastic archwires.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. de la Cruz A, Sampson P, Little RM, Artun J, Shapiro PA. Long-term changes in arch form after orthodontic treatment and retention. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995;107:518-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(95)70119-2
  2. Felton JM, Sinclair PM, Jones DL, Alexander RG. A computerized analysis of the shape and stability of mandibular arch form. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1987;92:478-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(87)90229-0
  3. McLaughlin RP, Bennett JC. Arch form considerations for stability and esthetics. Rev Esp Orthod 2000;29:46-63.
  4. Shapiro PA. Mandibular dental arch form and dimension: Treatment and postretention changes. Am J Orthod 1974;66:58-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(74)90193-6
  5. Krishnan M, Kalathil S, Abraham KM. Comparative evaluation of frictional forces in active and passive self-ligating brackets with various archwire alloys. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;136:675-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.11.034
  6. Ferrario VF, Sforza C, Miani A Jr, Tartaglia G. Mathematical definition of the shape of dental arches in human permanent healthy dentitions. Eur J Orthod 1994;16:287-94. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/16.4.287
  7. Merz ML, Isaacson RJ, Germane N, Rubenstein LK. Tooth diameters and arch perimeters in a black and a white population. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1991;100:53-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(91)70049-3
  8. Lee CH, Mo SS, Kang YG, Nojima K, Kim YH, Kook YA. Comparison of arch forms between Korean and Japanese in Class I, II, and III malocclusion. Korean J Orthod 2007;37:364-75.
  9. Kunjur J, Sabesan T, Ilankovan V. Anthropometric analysis of eyebrows and eyelids: an inter-racial study. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2006;44:89-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2005.03.020
  10. Behbehani F, Hicks EP, Beeman C, Kluemper GT, Rayens MK. Racial variations in cephalometric analysis between Whites and Kuwaitis. Angle Orthod 2006;76:406-11.
  11. Lee JJ, Ramirez SG, Will MJ. Gender and racial variations in cephalometric analysis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1997;117:326-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0194-5998(97)70121-9
  12. Abd-el Samad Younes S. Maxillary arch dimensions in Saudi and Egyptian population sample. Am J Orthod 1984;85:83-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(84)90126-X
  13. Bishara SE, Abdalla EM, Hoppens BJ. Cephalometric comparisons of dentofacial parameters between Egyptian and North American adolescents. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1990;97:413-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(90)70113-Q
  14. Sarhan OA, Diwan RR. Maxillary arch dimensions in Egyptian and British children. Odontostomatol Trop 1987;10:101-6.
  15. Kook YA, Nojima K, Moon HB, McLaughlin RP, Sinclair PM. Comparison of arch forms between Korean and North American white populations. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;126:680-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2003.10.038
  16. The World Factbook, Egypt [Internet]. Available from: http://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/eg.html.
  17. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia [Internet]. Arab League. Available from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_League.
  18. Andrews LF. Straight wire - the concept and appliance. San Diego: LA Wells; 1989.
  19. Nummikoski P, Prihoda T, Langlais RP, McDavid WD, Welander U, Tronje G. Dental and mandibular arch widths in three ethnic groups in Texas: a radiographic study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1988;65:609-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-4220(88)90146-6
  20. Collins BP, Harris EF. Arch form in American blacks and whites with malocclusions. J Tenn Dent Assoc 1998;78:15-8.
  21. Burris BG, Harris EF. Maxillary arch size and shape in American blacks and whites. Angle Orthod 2000;70:297-302.
  22. BeGole EA. Application of the cubic spline function in the description of dental arch form. J Dent Res 1980;59:1549-56. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345800590092901
  23. Bonwill WGA. Geometrical and mechanical laws of articulation. Trans Odont Soc Penn 1884-1885;119-33.
  24. Camporesi M, Franchi L, Baccetti T, Antonini A. Thin-plate spline analysis of arch form in a Southern European population with an ideal natural occlusion. Eur J Orthod 2006;28:135-40. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cji065
  25. Ferrario VF, Sforza C, Miani A Jr, Tartaglia G. Maxillary versus mandibular arch form differences in human permanent dentition assessed by Euclidean-distance matrix analysis. Arch Oral Biol 1994;39:135-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-9969(94)90108-2
  26. Noroozi H, Nik TH, Saeeda R. The dental arch form revisited. Angle Orthod 2001;71:386-9.
  27. Taner TU, Ciger S, El H, Germec D, Es A. Evaluation of dental arch width and form changes after orthodontic treatment and retention with a new computerized method. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;126:463-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2003.08.033
  28. Nojima K, McLaughlin RP, Isshiki Y, Sinclair PM. A comparative study of Caucasian and Japanese mandibular clinical arch forms. Angle Orthod 2001;71:195-200.
  29. DeKock WH. Dental arch depth and width studied longitudinally from 12 years of age to adulthood. Am J Orthod 1972;62:56-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(72)90125-X
  30. Haralabakis NB, Sifakakis I, Papagrigorakis M, Papadakis G. The correlation of sexual dimorphism in tooth size and arch form. World J Orthod 2006;7:254-60.
  31. Braun S, Hnat WP, Fender DE, Legan HL. The form of the human dental arch. Angle Orthod 1998;68:29-36.
  32. Kook YA, Bayome M, Park SB, Cha BK, Lee YW, Baek SH. Overjet at the anterior and posterior segments: three-dimensional analysis of arch coordination. Angle Orthod 2009;79:495-501. https://doi.org/10.2319/0003-3219(2009)079[0495:OATAAP]2.0.CO;2

피인용 문헌

  1. The correlation between physique and dental arch size vol.20, pp.1, 2020, https://doi.org/10.13065/jksdh.20200002
  2. The correlation between physique and dental arch size vol.20, pp.1, 2020, https://doi.org/10.13065/jksdh.20200002