Ning, Fang
(Department of Orthodontics, School of Stomatology, The Fourth Military Medical University)
,
Duan, Yinzhong
(Department of Orthodontics, School of Stomatology, The Fourth Military Medical University)
이번 연구의 목적은 성인 골격성 III급 부정교합환자의 하악 제1소구치 또는 제2소구치 발치 후에 치조골격성 변화와 연조직 변화를 평가하는 데 있다. 28명의 경계선상에 있는 골격성 III급 부정교합환자들이 연구되었다. 모든 환자는 하악 제1소구치 또는 제2소구치를 발치한 후 치료되었으며 치료 전과 치료 후 측모두부방사선사진을 촬영하여 paired t-test를 통해 분석하였다. 치료 후에 골격적으로 유의성 있는 변화는 관찰되지 않았다. 치성변화에 대해 하악 전치각도가 8.1도 정도 감소하였으며 interincisal angle은 7.7도 정도 증가하였다 ($p$ < 0.01). 수평 피개는 5.7 mm로 증가하였으며 ($p$ < 0.01), L1-NB 각은 7.3도 감소하였고 L1-NB 거리는 4.8 mm 감소하였다 ($p$ < 0.01). 연조직 변화에 있어 Li-E, Li-H과 LiRL2 거리는 각각 3.2 mm, 3.4 mm, 4.1 mm 감소하였다 ($p$ < 0.01). 심하지 않은 골격성 III급 부정교합 환자에 대한 하악 소구치 발치를 통한 교정적인 보상치료는 우수한 교합관계를 달성할 수 있으며 예측이 가능한 치료 대안이 될 수 있다.
이번 연구의 목적은 성인 골격성 III급 부정교합환자의 하악 제1소구치 또는 제2소구치 발치 후에 치조골격성 변화와 연조직 변화를 평가하는 데 있다. 28명의 경계선상에 있는 골격성 III급 부정교합환자들이 연구되었다. 모든 환자는 하악 제1소구치 또는 제2소구치를 발치한 후 치료되었으며 치료 전과 치료 후 측모두부방사선사진을 촬영하여 paired t-test를 통해 분석하였다. 치료 후에 골격적으로 유의성 있는 변화는 관찰되지 않았다. 치성변화에 대해 하악 전치각도가 8.1도 정도 감소하였으며 interincisal angle은 7.7도 정도 증가하였다 ($p$ < 0.01). 수평 피개는 5.7 mm로 증가하였으며 ($p$ < 0.01), L1-NB 각은 7.3도 감소하였고 L1-NB 거리는 4.8 mm 감소하였다 ($p$ < 0.01). 연조직 변화에 있어 Li-E, Li-H과 LiRL2 거리는 각각 3.2 mm, 3.4 mm, 4.1 mm 감소하였다 ($p$ < 0.01). 심하지 않은 골격성 III급 부정교합 환자에 대한 하악 소구치 발치를 통한 교정적인 보상치료는 우수한 교합관계를 달성할 수 있으며 예측이 가능한 치료 대안이 될 수 있다.
Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the dentoskeletal and soft tissue profile changes after extraction of two lower first or second premolars in "borderline" adult skeletal Class III cases. Methods: Twenty-eight patients with "borderline" skeletal Class III malocclusion were studied...
Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the dentoskeletal and soft tissue profile changes after extraction of two lower first or second premolars in "borderline" adult skeletal Class III cases. Methods: Twenty-eight patients with "borderline" skeletal Class III malocclusion were studied. All of them were treated by extraction of two lower first or second premolars. Lateral cephalometric radiographs taken at the start and end of treatment were analysed. Twenty-five cephalometric variables were calculated and paired $t$-tests were performed. Results: After treatment, no significant changes were noted in the skeletal parameters ($p{\geq}0.05$). Regarding the dental parameters, the L1-MP angle decreased by $8.1^{\circ}$, the U1-L1 angle increased by $7.7^{\circ}$ ($p$ < 0.01), the overjet distance increased by 5.7 mm ($p$ < 0.01), the L1-NB angle decreased by $7.3^{\circ}$ and the L1-NB distance decreased by 4.8 mm ($p$ < 0.01). The soft tissue parameters of Li-E, Li-H and Li-RL2 distance decreased by 3.2 mm, 3.4 mm and 4.1 mm respectively ($p$ < 0.01). Conclusions: Orthodontic camouflage treatment by extraction of two lower first or second premolars provides a viable treatment alternative for "borderline" skeletal Class III cases to achieve a good occlusal relationship.
Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the dentoskeletal and soft tissue profile changes after extraction of two lower first or second premolars in "borderline" adult skeletal Class III cases. Methods: Twenty-eight patients with "borderline" skeletal Class III malocclusion were studied. All of them were treated by extraction of two lower first or second premolars. Lateral cephalometric radiographs taken at the start and end of treatment were analysed. Twenty-five cephalometric variables were calculated and paired $t$-tests were performed. Results: After treatment, no significant changes were noted in the skeletal parameters ($p{\geq}0.05$). Regarding the dental parameters, the L1-MP angle decreased by $8.1^{\circ}$, the U1-L1 angle increased by $7.7^{\circ}$ ($p$ < 0.01), the overjet distance increased by 5.7 mm ($p$ < 0.01), the L1-NB angle decreased by $7.3^{\circ}$ and the L1-NB distance decreased by 4.8 mm ($p$ < 0.01). The soft tissue parameters of Li-E, Li-H and Li-RL2 distance decreased by 3.2 mm, 3.4 mm and 4.1 mm respectively ($p$ < 0.01). Conclusions: Orthodontic camouflage treatment by extraction of two lower first or second premolars provides a viable treatment alternative for "borderline" skeletal Class III cases to achieve a good occlusal relationship.
* AI 자동 식별 결과로 적합하지 않은 문장이 있을 수 있으니, 이용에 유의하시기 바랍니다.
제안 방법
Fig 3. Soft tissue measurements used in the study. SN indicates Sella-nasion plane; RL1, horizontal reference line; RL2, vertical reference line; 1, upper lip to E plane; 2, lower lip to E plane; 3, lower lip to H line; 4, Cm-Sn-Ls; 5, Ls-RL2; 6, Li-RL2; 7, A-Ls.
The aim of this study was to evaluate dentoskeletal and soft tissue profile changes after extraction of two lower first or second premolars in adult borderline skeletal Class III cases.
대상 데이터
A 17-year-old male presented with anterior crossbite and mandibular protrusion (Figs 4-10). The intraoral examination showed a Class III molar relationship on both sides and slight crowding in the upper and lower arches.
8 years. All the patients were treated with extraction of two lower first or second premolars in the Department of Orthodontics at the Fourth Military Medical University. The patients' first visit dates were all from 2002 to 2007.
이론/모형
All patients were treated with the standard edgewise technique. In these cases, two lower first or second premolars were extracted.
Therefore, a combined surgical-orthodontic treatment was recommended, but the patient refused this treatment. Treatment started with extraction of two lower first premolars and standard edgewise technique was applied. In order to avoid the occlusal interference during buccal movement of upper teeth, a lower bite-plate was fitted.
성능/효과
After treatment, the results were statistically significant with Cm-Sn-Ls decreased by 3.1º and Ls-E distance increased by 0.9 mm (p ＜ 0.05).
The method error determined was 0.3 mm for linear measurement and 0.4º for angular measurement, which were both statistically insignificant (p ≥ 0.05).
These researchers indicated that surgery should be performed for patients with an ANB angle of less than −4º, a maxillary/mandibular (M/M) ratio of 0.84, an inclination of the lower incisors to the mandibular of 83º, and a Holdaway angle of 3.5º.
참고문헌 (21)
Lin J, Gu Y. Preliminary investigation of nonsurgical treatment of severe skeletal Class III malocclusion in the permanent dentition. Angle Orthod 2003;73:401-10.
Dietrich UC. Morphological variability of skeletal Class 3 relationships as revealed by cephalometric analysis. Rep Congr Eur Orthod Soc 1970;131-43.
Duan YZ, Yang ZH, Leng J. Effects of face mask/Class III elastic therapy on severe skeletal crossbite. J Modern Stomatol 2003;17:251-2.
Gu Y, Rabie AB, Hagg U. Treatment effects of simple fixed appliance and reverse headgear in correction of anterior crossbites. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000;117:691-9.
Cha KS. Skeletal changes of maxillary protraction in patients exhibiting skeletal class III malocclusion: a comparison of three skeletal maturation groups. Angle Orthod 2003;73:26-35.
Tollaro I, Baccetti T, Franchi L. Craniofacial changes induced by early functional treatment of Class III malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1996;109:310-8.
Lew KK. Soft tissue profile changes following orthodontic treatment of Chinese adults with Class III malocclusion. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 1990;5:59-65.
Demir A, Uysal T, Sari Z, Basciftci FA. Effects of camouflage treatment on dentofacial structures in Class II division 1 mandibular retrognathic patients. Eur J Orthod 2005;27:524-31.
Nalbantgil D, Arun T, Sayinsu K, Fulya I. Skeletal, dental and soft-tissue changes induced by the Jasper Jumper appliance in late adolescence. Angle Orthod 2005;75:426-36.
Ning F, Duan Y, Huo N. Camouflage treatment in skeletal Class III cases combined with severe crowding by extraction of four premolars. Orthod Waves 2009;68:80-7.
Rabie AB, Wong RW, Min GU. Treatment in borderline Class III malocclusion: orthodontic camouflage (extraction) versus orthognathic surgery. Open Dent J 2008;2:38-48.
Cassidy DW Jr, Herbosa EG, Rotskoff KS, Johnston LE Jr. A comparison of surgery and orthodontics in "borderline" adults with Class II, division 1 malocclusions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1993;104:455-70.
Zeng XL, Lin JX, Huang JF. Skeletal crossbite: surgery or orthodontics? West China Journal of Stomatology 1985;3:233-7.
Stellzig-Eisenhauer A, Lux CJ, Schuster G. Treatment decision in adult patients with Class III malocclusion: orthodontic therapy or orthognathic surgery? Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002;122:27-37.
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.