선천적 치아 결손의 양상과 특징

Abstract

[한글]

최근 3년간 영동세브란스 병원 교정과에 내원한 환자 1,622명(남자 611명, 여자 1,011명)의 외래 기록지와 방사선 사진, 진단 모형을 이용하여 제3대구치를 제외한선천적 치아 결손의 발현 양상과 다른 치아와의 상관성, 그리고 악안면 골격형태와의 연관성 등을 조사한 결과 다음과 같은 결론을 얻었다.1. 선천적 치아 결손의 유병률은 11.2%였으며 성별에 따른 차이는 없었다. 2. 선천적 치아 결손은 편측성이 70.9%, 양측성이 29.1%로 편측성이 더 많았다. 3. 선천적 치아 결손은 하악 49.5%, 상악 29.1%, 양악 21.4%의 유병율을 보였다. 4. 선천적 치아 결손은 하악 제2소구치와 하악 측절치가 20.4%로 가장 컸으며, 상악 제2소구치 14.3%, 상악 제1소구치 11.3%, 상악 측절치 10.6%, 하악 중절치 6.4%, 상악 견치 6.1%였다. 5. 제3대구치의 결손율은 선천적 치아 결손군이 48.2%로 선천적 치아 결손이 없는 군의 27.4%보다 더 컸으며, 제3대구치의 평균 결손 개수도 선천적 치아 결손 군이 더 많았다. 6. 치아의 근원심 폭경은 남녀 모두 상악 측절치에서 치아 크기 감소가 선천적 치아 결손군에서 나타났으며 나머지 치아에서는 차이가 없었다. 7. 수평적 골격양상에 따른 선천적 치아 결손의 유병률은 Class I 10.5%, Class II/ 7.4%, Class III 16.0%로 차이를 나타내었다.8. 수직적 골격양상에 따른 선천적 치아 결손의 유병률은 Hyperdivergent 11.2%, Normal 11.4%, Hypodivergent 10.3%로 차이가 없었다.

[영문]

There are a great number of causes for the congenital missing teeth and its appearance and frequency in mouth also seem to be very various. How often it happens, where is the most frequently affected areas, whether there are any sexual difference, whether it usually occurs unilaterally or not, which jaw is more easily affected whether one who has congenital missing teeth gets much chance of his third molars missing, whether tooth size is smaller in the missing teeth group, and the relation to skeletal jaw patterns are the factors that can affect the treatment planning and treatment itself when it comes to an orthodontic treatment. Hence, I did some research on it to know the aspects of the congenital missing teeth, analyzed the results and came to a conclusion using the clinical examination, treatment chart, radiographs, and diagnostic models of the 1,622 (male 611, female 1,011) patients who visited the orthodontic department in Youngdong severance hospital for recent 3 years. The conclusions are as follows. 1. Prevalence of congenital missing teeth was 11.2% and there was no significant difference between male and female. 2. 70.9% of the subjects were the unilateral congenital missing and the bilateral case was 29.1%. This means congenital missing occurs unilaterally better than bilaterally.3. The prevalence rates were 49.5% involved in mandibule, 29.1% in maxilla and 21.4% in both jaws. 4. The prevalence of the mandibular second premolars and mandibular lateral incisors which was the largest (20.4%), maxillary second premolars(14.3%), maxillary first premolars(11.3%), maxillary lateral incisors(10.6%), mandibular central incisors(6.4%) and maxillary canine(6.1%).5. The third molar missing rates were 48.2% in the congenital missing group and 27.4% in normal group and numbers of missing third molars were greater in the congenital missing group.6. Only the maxillary lateral incisors showed the smaller mesiodistal diameter in the congenital missing teeth group in both sexes. In other teeth, there was no significant difference in tooth size.7. The missing rates were 10.5% in Class I, 7.4% in Class II and 16.0% in Class III for each group and there existed a statistical significance.9. The missing rates were 11.2% in Hyperdivergent group, 11.4% in Normal group and 10.3% in Hypodivergent group and there existed no statistical significance.