대한치과교정학회지 (The korean journal of orthodontics)

  • 제40권5호
  • /
  • Pages.325-333
  • /
  • 2010
  • /
  • 2234-7518(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2005-372X(eISSN)
대한치과교정학회 (The Korean Association Of Orthodontists)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

상악 가철식 보정장치인 circumferential comfortable retainer (CCR)에 대한 불편감 평가

Discomfort caused by the circumferential comfortable retainer (CCR) as a removable maxillary retainer

  • 최진휴 (중앙대학교 의과대학 치과학교실) ;
  • 문철현 (가천의과학대학교 길치과병원 교정과)
  • Choi, Jin-Hugh (Department of Dentistry, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine) ;
  • Moon, Cheol-Hyun (Department of Orthodontics, Gachon University Dental Hospital)
  • 투고 : 2010.05.03
  • 심사 : 2010.06.01
  • 발행 : 2010.10.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

발음장애, 구토감 및 착용 불편감과 같은 보정장치에 대해 환자가 느끼는 불편감을 평가해보기 위해 고정식 교정장치로 교정치료를 받고 교정장치가 제거된 66명(남자 23명, 여자 43명; 평균연령 $23.42{\pm}10.19$)의 교정환자를 대상으로 무작위로 두 군으로 배정한 후 고정식 교정장치를 제거한 다음 날 CWR 장착군에게는 구개를 완전히 덮는 구개 완전 피개형 보정장치인 conventional wraparound retainer (CWR)를 장착시키고 CCR 장착군에게는 구개를 말 발굽 모양으로 부분 피개하는 보정장치인 circumferential comfortable retainer (CCR)를 4주 동안 장착시킨 후 발음장애, 구토감 및 착용 불편감의 정도에 대해 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS)로 표시할 수 있도록 제작된 설문지를 통해 얻은 점수에 대해 통계적으로 비교 분석하였다. 연구결과 발음장애와 착용 불편감의 비교에서 CCR 장착군이 CWR 장착군에 비해 통계적으로 유의하게 낮았다 ($p$ < 0.05). 구토감의 비교에서는 CCR 장착군이 CWR 장착군에 비해 낮은 점수를 보였지만 통계적으로는 유의한 차이를 보이지 않았다 ($p$ = 0.146). 이상의 연구 결과로 circumferential comfortable retainer (CCR)는 발음장애를 감소시키고, 착용 불편감을 완화시킴으로써 환자의 협조도를 증진시켜줄 수 있는바 고정식 교정장치를 이용한 교정치료 후 치료결과 유지에 도움이 될 수 있음을 시사하였다.

Objective: The aim of this study was to illustrate the circumferential comfortable retainer (CCR) as a removable maxillary retainer with good potential patient compliance and to evaluate the discomfort of the retainers including distorted speech, gagging sensation and appliance discomfort. Methods: Sixty-six orthodontic patients (male, 23; female, 43; mean age, $23.42{\pm}10.19$ years) who received orthodontic treatment with fixed orthodontic appliances were randomly assigned to two groups after debonding, a conventional wraparound retainer (CWR) group that fully covers the palate with an acrylic plate and a highly polished surface, and a circumferential comfortable retainer (CCR) group which has a horseshoe shaped base plate with three folds on the anterior region. A questionnaire that had a visual analog scale (VAS) which consists of a 100-mm horizontal line with 2 end-points labeled "no discomfort" on the left and "worst discomfort" on the right, with regard to distorted speech, gagging sensation and discomfort, was administered to patients after 4 weeks of retainer wear. The Mann-Whitney test was used to test the hypothesis that there was no difference between the two retainers. Results: Comparing distorted speech and discomfort, the CCR group significantly had lower values than the CWR group ($p$ < 0.05). Comparing gagging sensation, the CCR group had lower values than the CWR group but there were no statistically significant differences between groups ($p$ = 0.146). Conclusions: In conclusion, the results suggest that the circumferential comfortable retainer (CCR) might facilitate patient compliance and thereby improve the maintenance of the fixed orthodontic treatment outcome.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Sheridan JJ. The three keys of retention. J Clin Orthod 1991;25:717-24.
  2. Hwang CJ. Analysis of characteristics of medical accidents and disputes in orthodontic area. Korean J Orthod 1999;29:1-22.
  3. Egolf RJ, BeGole EA, Upshaw HS. Factors associated with orthodontic patient compliance with intraoral elastic and headgear wear. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1990;97:336-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(90)70106-M
  4. Oliver RG, Knapman YM. Attitudes to orthodontic treatment. Br J Orthod 1985;12:179-88. https://doi.org/10.1179/bjo.12.4.179
  5. Bartsch A, Witt E, Sahm G, Schneider S. Correlates of objective patient compliance with removable appliance wear. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1993;104:378-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(05)81337-X
  6. Brattstrom V, Ingelsson M, Aberg E. Treatment co-operation in orthodontic patients. Br J Orthod 1991;18:37-42. https://doi.org/10.1179/bjo.18.1.37
  7. Stratton CS, Burkland GA. The effect of maxillary retainers on the clarity of speech. J Clin Orthod 1993;27:338-40.
  8. Moyers RE. Development of dentition and occlusion. In: Moyers RE editor. Handbook of orthodontics for the student and general practitioner. 3rd ed. Chicago, Ill: Year Book Medical Publishers; 1973. p. 175-92.
  9. Bishara SE. Oral lesions caused by an orthodontic retainer: a case report. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995;108:115-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(95)70073-0
  10. Seymour RA, Simpson JM, Charlton JE, Phillips ME. An evaluation of length and end-phrase of visual analogue scales in dental pain. Pain 1987;21:177-85.
  11. Giannopoulou C, Dudic A, Kiliaridis S. Pain discomfort and crevicular fluid changes induced by orthodontic elastic separators in children. J Pain 2006;7:367-76.
  12. Kluemper GT, Hiser DG, Rayens MK, Jay MJ. Efficacy of a wax containing benzocaine in the relief of oral mucosal pain caused by orthodontic appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002;122:359-65. https://doi.org/10.1067/mod.2002.126405
  13. Bird SE, Williams K, Kula K. Preoperative acetaminophen vs ibuprofen for control of pain after orthodontic separator placement. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;132:504-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.11.019
  14. Joondeph DR. Retention and relapse. In: Graber TM, Vanarsdall RL Jr, Vig KWL editors. Orthodontics: current principles and techniques. 4th ed. St. Louis, Mo: Elsevier Mosby; 2005. p. 1123-51.
  15. Mills JR. A long-term assessment of the mechanical retroclination of lower incisors. Angle Orthod 1967;37:165-74.
  16. Moss JP. The soft tissue environment of teeth and jaws. An experimental and clinical study: part 1. Br J Orthod 1980;7:127-37. https://doi.org/10.1179/bjo.7.3.127
  17. Moss JP. The soft tissue environment of teeth and jaws. Experimental malocclusion: Parts 2 and 3. Br J Orthod 1980;7:205-16. https://doi.org/10.1179/bjo.7.4.205
  18. Reitan K. Clinical and histologic observations on tooth movement during and after orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod 1967;53:721-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(67)90118-2
  19. Gottlieb EL, Nelson AH, Vogels DS 3rd. 1996 JCO study of orthodontic diagnosis and treatment procedures, Part 1. Results and trends. J Clin Orthod 1996;30:615-29.
  20. Destang DL, Kerr WJ. Maxillary retention: is longer better? Eur J Orthod 2003;25:65-9. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/25.1.65
  21. Erb DP. Speech effects of the maxillary retainer. Angle Orthod 1967;37:298-303.
  22. Laine T. Articulatory disorders in speech as related to size of the alveolar arches. Eur J Orthod 1986;8:192-7. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/8.3.192
  23. Oliver RG, Evans SP. Tongue size, oral cavity size and speech. Angle Orthod 1986;56:234-43.
  24. Haydar B, Karabulut G, Ozkan S, Aksoy AU, Ciger S. Effects of retainers on the articulation of speech. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1996;110:535-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(96)70062-8
  25. Reinicke C, Obijou N, Trankmann J. The palatal shape of upper removable appliances. Influence on the tongue position in swallowing. J Orofac Orthop 1998;59:202-7. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01579164
  26. Jones ML. An investigation into the initial discomfort caused by placement of an archwire. Eur J Orthod 1984;6:48-54. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/6.1.48

피인용 문헌

  1. Users’ perceptions and preferences towards maxillary removable orthodontic retainers: a crossover randomized clinical trial vol.33, pp.None, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-3107bor-2019.vol33.0078