• 대한소아치과학회지
• /
• 제40권1호
• /
• pp.21-27
• /
• 2013

현재까지의 많은 연구들을 통해 치아의 발육상태와 골격성 부정교합과의 연관성이 보고되어 왔다. 본 연구는 방사선학적 방법을 통하여 정상교합군과 하악 과성장형 골격성 3급 부정교합군의 상하악 치령 및 제2대구치 맹출률을 비교, 분석하여, 파노라마 방사선 사진으로 평가 가능한 상하악 치아성숙도의 차이가 하악 과성장형 골격성 3급 부정교합의 감별진단 요소로 의의가 있는지 알아볼 목적으로 시행되었다. 부산대학교 소아치과에 내원한 Hellman 치령 IIIA의 환자를 대상으로 정상교합군과 하악 과성장형 골격성 3급 부정교합군 각 50명을 선택한 후, 이들의 파노라마 방사선 사진을 이용하여 Demirjian법으로 각 군의 상하악 치령 및 제2대구치 맹출률을 구하고 그 차이를 비교, 분석하였다. 그 결과 정상교합군과 하악 과성장형 골격성 3급 부정교합군의 상하 치령의 차이는 각각 0.66세와 1.20세로 하악 과성장형 골격성 3급 부정교합군에서 유의하게 더 큰 차이를 보였으며(p < 0.05), 상하 제2대구치 맹출률은 두 그룹 간 유의한 차이를 보이지 않았다(p > 0.05).

• 대한치과교정학회지
• /
• 제24권4호
• /
• pp.851-860
• /
• 1994

Before 1970, mandibular overgrowth was known as main cause of skeletal Class III malocclusion in growing children ; however, recent study reports that many skeletal Class III malocclusion patients also show maxillary deficiency. Since 1972, when Delaire re-accommodated Protraction Head Gear (P.H.G.), many researchers have reported that skeletal Class III discrepancies could be corrected through use of P.H.G., which induces anterior movement of maxilla and change in mandibular growth pattern into infero-posterior direction ; nevertheless, it is very difficult to predict resultant changes of orofacial region. The purpose of this study was to find out what treatment effect P.H.G. has on different study samples. Author divided 51 skeletal Class III malocclusion patients with maxillary deficiency who were treated with P.H.G. into different study groups depending on sex, treatment beginning age, intraoral appliance, and facial growth pattern. By doing so, following results were obtained. 1. Treatment beginning age and Sex Four age groups (5.8 to 8 year-old, 8 to 10 year-old, 10 to 12 year-old, 12 to 14 year-old) were compared, and no significant difference was observed. (p<0.05) There was no significant difference between the sex groups, either. (p<0.05). 2. Intraoral appliance Treatment effects of study groups that used R.P.E.(mean age of 10.2) and Labio-Lingual appliance(mean age of 8.9) were compared. There was no significant difference depending on the type of intraoral appliance that was used. (p<0.05) 3. Facial growth pattern 1) Amounts of SNB and ANB corrections were smaller in clockwise growth pattern group than those in normal or counterclockwise growth pattern group. (p<0.05) 2) Amounts of increase in Wits appraisal and mandibular plane angle were greater in counterclockwise growth pattern group than those in normal or clockwise growth pattern group. (p<0.05) 3)Amounts of increase in articular angle were greater in counter lockwise growth pattern group than those in clockwise growth pattern group. (p<0.05)