The objective and quantitative analysis of malocclusion : Part 1. Objective malocclusion severity and subjective treatment difficulty

부정교합의 객관적 정량분석: Part 1. 객관적 부정교합 경중도와 주관적인 치료난이도의 상관관계

  • Joo, Bo-Hoon (Department 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

The evaluation of malocclusion has to be done quantitatively and qualitatively. This will be lead toward an analysis of malocclusion severity as well as treatment difficulty. The method of proper evaluation of malocclusion severity and treatment difficulty is necessary to assess treatment effect and efficiency for the orthodontists and to establish fundamentals for planning and executing the health-related policies in private and public institutions. The purposes of this study as the first part of the objective and quantitative analysis of malocclusion were 1) to measure treatment difficulty based on the opinions of several orthodontists. and 2) to investigate the relationships between objective malocclusion severity and subjective treatment difficulty 100 pairs of dental casts that had various types and severity of malocclusion were selected from the orthodontic departments of Kyurghee University and Samsung Medical Center The objective malocclusion severity was measured with the PAR (Peer Assessment Rating) index and the subjective treatment difficulty was evaluated by 8 experienced orthodontists. The relationships between objective malocclusion severity and subjective treatment difficulty were statistically evaluated. There were significant relationships between objective malocclusion severity and subjective treatment difficulty especially in the measurements of the upper anterior alignment, the buccal occlusion. the overjet, the overbite and the midline discrepancy en the malocclusion components. The results of this study can provide the background knowledge to develop a new occlusal index. which contains both the malocclusion severity and treatment difficulty for Korean orthodontists.

부정교합의 평가는 질적, 양적인 면에서 모두 평가되어야 한다. 이는 부정교합의 경중도의 평가뿐만 아니라 이의 치료가 얼마나 어려운가를 반영할 수 있는 치료의 난이도로 발전되어야 한다. 이러한 부정교합의 경중도와 치료의 난이도를 객관적이고 효율적으로 측정하기 위한 방법의 개발이 필요하다. 이는 치과 교정학에서 치료의 효과 및 효율의 평가에서 치료난이도를 반영하는 부정교합 경중도 측정을 가능하게 하여 교정치료의 양적 그리고 질적 평가를 가능하게 할 것이다. 본 연구는 부정교합의 객관적 정량분석을 위한 연구로써 객관적 부정교합의 경중도와 주관적 치료 난이도를 측정하고 이들간의 상관관계를 연구하고자 하였다. 이를 위하여, 100쌍의 교정용 치아모형을 이용하여 경험 있는 8명의 치과교정의가 주관적인 치료의 난이도를 평가하기 위하여 치료의 어려움과 예상치료기간을 추정하였으며. 객관적인 부정교합의 경중도를 측정하기 위하여 저자는 동료평가등급 지수 (PAR index) 를 사용하여 각 부정교합의 구성요소 별 경중도를 계측하였다. 이들간의 상관관계의 조사에서 객관적으로 계측한 부정교합의 경중도와 평가단의 치료 예상난이도 사이에는 유의한 관련성이 있었으며. 특히 상악 전치부 배열, 구치부교합, 수평피개도, 수직피개도 그리고 정중선 일치도에서 높은 상관성을 보였다 본 연구를 통하여 객관적으로 계측된 부정교합의 경중도가 치과 교정의사가 느끼는 주관적 치료 난이도에 미치는 영향을 조사할 수 있으며. 이는 치료의 주관적 난이도를 내포하는 새로운 국내형 교합지수 개발에 도움이 될 것으로 사료된다회된 법랑질 깊이가 유의성 있게 감소하였다. (p<0.05). 접착레진으로 부착된 군 (Group 4)은 법랑질 탈회가 거의 나타나지 않았다. 이상의 연구결과는 교정치료 시 법랑질 탈회 가능성을 줄이기 위해서 브라켓 부착 시 실런트 레진의 도포가 유용함을 시사하였다..5\;{\mu} g/mL)\;piroxicam(3.5\pm0.3\l{\mu}g/mL)$,으로 유의성이 있었으며(p<0.05), 흡수 속도상수는 piroxicam-$\beta$-cyclodextrin$(3.00\pm0.49\;h^{-1}), \;piroxicam(1.80\pm0.21\;h^{-1})$이었다(p<0.1). 이상의 결과에서, piroxicam-$\beta$-cyclodextrin정은 piroxicam 확산정과 비교하여 흡수되는 정도는 서로 비슷하지만 흡수 초기의 혈장농도 및 흡수속도상수에서 보다 빠른 약동학적 특성을 나타내었다.삼차원 입체조형치료를 받은 환자에 대해서는 앞으로 추적 관찰이 좀 더 필요할 것으로 생각된다. 앞으로 국소관해를 높이기 위한 방사선치료방법과 전신적 전이율의 감소를 위한 항암요법에 관한 연구가 필요할 것으로 생각된다.다. MD-BED $Gy_3$는 직장합병증 발생과의 관계는 통계적으로 유의하였고, 방광합병증과는 유의하지 않았다. 직장합병증과의 연관성은 MD-BED $Gy_3$보다 개별 환자의 직장전벽 총 선량 BED값인 R-BED $Gy_3$가 훨씬 더 높았다

Keywords

References

  1. Angle EH. Classification of malocclusion. Dental Cosmos 1899;41:248-64
  2. Bjork A, Krebs A, Solow B. A method for epidemiological registration of malocclusion. Acta Odontol Scand 1964;22:27-41 https://doi.org/10.3109/00016356408993963
  3. Baume LJ, Marechaux SCh. Uniform methods for the epidemiologic assessment of malocclusion: The development of basic methods by the World Health Organization and the Federation Dentaire Internationale. Am J Orthod 1974;66:121-9 https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(74)90231-0
  4. 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
  5. Grainger RM. Orthodontic Treatment priority index: Vital health stat 1967;2:1-49
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. Elderton RJ, Clark JD. Orthodontic treatment in the general dental service assessed by the occlusal index. Br J Orthod 1983;10:178-86 https://doi.org/10.1179/bjo.10.4.178
  11. O'Brien kd, Shaw WC, Robert CT. The use of occlusal indicies in assessing the provision of orthodontic treatment by the hospital orthodontic service of England and Wales. Br J Orthod 1993;15;16-26
  12. Richmond S, Shaw WC, O'Brien KD, Buchanan IB, Jones R, Stephens CD, Roberts CT, Andrews M. 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
  13. Rowe KGT. The concordance of pre-treatment malocclusion assessment among orthodontic specialty practitioners (Master's thesis). University of Michigan. 1989
  14. Margolis HI. The axial inclination of the mandibular incisors. Am J Orthod 1943;29:571-94
  15. Tweed CH. The frankfort-mandibular incisor angle (FMIA) in orthodontic diagnosis, treatment planning and prognosis. Angle Orthod 1954;24:121-69
  16. Downs WB. The role of cephalometries in orthodontic case analysis and diagnosis. Am J Orthod 1952;38:162-82 https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(52)90106-1
  17. Steiner CC. Use of cephalometries. Am J Orthod 1960;38:162-82 https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(52)90106-1
  18. Baldwin MH, Barnes ML. Patterns of motivation of families seeking orthodontic treatment. J Dent Res 1966;45:Abstract no. 412 https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345660450024001
  19. Oliver RG, Knapman YM. Attitudes to orthodontic treatment. Br J Orthod 1985;12:179-88 https://doi.org/10.1179/bjo.12.4.179
  20. Cohen LK. Jago JD. Toward the formulation of sociodental indicators. Int J Health Servi 1976;6:681-98 https://doi.org/10.2190/LE7A-UGBW-J3NR-Q992
  21. Cons NC, Jenny J, Kohout FJ. The dental esthetic index, iowa City: University of Iowa. 1986
  22. Katz RV. Relationships between eight orthodontic indices and an oral self image satisfaction scale. Am J Orthod 1978;73:328-34 https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(78)90139-2
  23. Ingervall B, Hedegard B. Awareness of malocclusion and desire for orthodontic treatment in 18 year old swedish men. Acta Odontol Scand 1974;32:93-101 https://doi.org/10.3109/00016357409002538
  24. Brook PH, Shaw WC. The development of an index of orthodontic treatment priority. Eur J Orthod 1989;11:309-20 https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.ejo.a035999
  25. Shaw WC, Lewis HG, Robertson NR. Perception of malocclusion. Br Dent J 1975;138:211-6 https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4803418
  26. Espeland LV, Stenvik A. Perception of personal dental appearance in young adults: Relationship between occlusion, awareness, and satisfaction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1991;100:234-41 https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(91)70060-A
  27. Grewe JM, Hermanson PC. Influence of severity of malocclusion on the duration of orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod 1973;63:533-6 https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(73)90166-8
  28. Vig K, O'Brien K, Shnorhokian H, Vayda D, Vig P, Weyant R, Colella C, Izen J, McGrogan R. Predictors for Class I and Class II treatment duration differ. J Dent Res 73:273-7
  29. Fink DF, Smith RJ. The duration of orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1992;102:45-51 https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(92)70013-Z
  30. Han UK, Vig KW, Weintraub JA, Vig PS, Kowalski CJ. Consistency of orthodontic treatment decisions relative to diagnostic records. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1991;100:212-19 https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(91)70058-5
  31. Atchison KA, Luke LS, White SC. An algorithm for ordering pretreatment orthodontic radiographs. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1992;102:29-44 https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(92)70012-Y
  32. Atchison KA, Luke LS, White SC. Contribution of pretreatment radiographs to orthodontists' decision making. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1991;71:238-45 https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-4220(91)90477-T