Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science (구강회복응용과학지)

Korean Academy of Stomatognathic Function and Occlusion (대한턱관절교합학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Esthetic Impact of Extraction and Nonextraction Treatments on Korean People

발치, 비발치를 동반한 교정치료 전후의 안모의 변화에 관한 인지도

  • Lee, Se-Hyeong (Department of orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Dankoook University) ;
  • Chung, Dong-Hwa (Department of orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Dankoook University) ;
  • Cha, Kyung-Suk (Department of orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Dankoook University) ;
  • Lee, Jin-Woo (Department of orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Dankoook University) ;
  • Lee, Sang-Min (Department of orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Dankoook University)
  • 이세형 (단국대학교 치과대학 교정학 교실) ;
  • 정동화 (단국대학교 치과대학 교정학 교실) ;
  • 차경석 (단국대학교 치과대학 교정학 교실) ;
  • 이진우 (단국대학교 치과대학 교정학 교실) ;
  • 이상민 (단국대학교 치과대학 교정학 교실)
  • Received : 2013.05.29
  • Accepted : 2013.06.25
  • Published : 2013.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The concept of extraction in orthodontic treatment has been changed many times. Even today, criteria of extraction or nonextraction is still changing. In this study, changes depending on the evaluator's perception of treatment outcomes were compared in both extraction and nonextraction cases. In this study, premolar extracted 59 patients and nonextracted 60 patients, totally 119 patients who finished orthodontic treatment in Dankook University Dental Hospital orthodontic clinic were enrolled. Evaluation sections made up of specialists and laypersons assessed soft tissue traced from lateral cephalometric radiographs with visual analogue scale before and after the treatment. And the results were statistically analyzed. Thus, the conclusions drawn are as follows: 1. Average score is 5.76 in extraction, which is larger than 5.28 of nonextraction case. Improvement of facial profile was more favorably accepted in extraction case. 2. 5.875 in the group of specialists were higher evaluation than 5.165 in the group of layperson. 3. Specialists gave significantly higher ratings in the extraction than nonextraction. 4. A higher rating in extraction case of the layperson group has no significant difference with nonextraction case. 5. Nonextraction patients were given higher ratings from specialist group. 6. A higher rating of specialist group in extraction case has no significant difference with layperson group.

교정 치료 시 발치에 대한 개념은 수없이 변화되어 왔었고, 현재도 발치 치료와 비발치 치료에 대한 기준은 변하고 있다. 본 연구에서는 한국인에서 발치, 비발치 치료에 따른 주관적 안모심미변화를 조사하고, 또한 평가자에 따른 치료결과에 대한 인식의 차이를 알아보았다. 본 연구는 단국대학교 치과대학병원 교정 클리닉에 내원하여 교정치료를 종료한 환자 중, 소구치 발치 환자 59명, 비발치 환자 60명, 총 119명을 대상으로 하였다. 전문가와 비전문가로 이루어진 평가단원이 치료 전 후 측방 두부방사선사진의 연조직 트레이싱을 VAS 평가하여 그 결과를 통계처리 하였다. 그리하여 도출한 결론은 다음과 같다. 1. 발치와 비발치의 평균 점수는 발치가 5.76, 비발치가 5.28로 발치를 한경우의 안모 개선 정도가 더 양호하게 받아들여졌다. 2. 일반인의 평균 점수는 5.165, 전문가 집단은 5.875로 이 연구에서는 일반인 집단보다 전문가 집단에서 전체적으로 더 높은 평가를 하였다. 3. 전문가 집단에서 발치와 비발치 환자를 평가하였을 때, 발치를 한 경우 유의하게 더 높은 점수가 나왔다. 4. 일반인 집단에서 발치와 비발치 환자를 평가하였을 때, 발치를 한 경우 더 높은 점수가 나왔으나 유의성 있는 차이는 존재하지 않는다. 5. 비발치 case에서는 전문가 집단이 일반인 집단 보다 유의성 있게 더 높은 평가를 내렸다. 6. 발치 case에서는 일반인보다 전문가 집단의 점수가 더 높았으나 유의성 있는 결과는 아니다.

Keywords

References

  1. Bowman SJ. More than lip service: facial esthetics in orthodontics. J Am Dent Assoc 1999;130:1173-81. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1999.0371
  2. Proffit WR. Forty-year review of extraction frequencies at a university orthodontic clinic. Angle Orthod 1994;64:407-14.
  3. Peck H, Peck S. A concept of facial esthetics. Angle Orthod 1970;40:284-318.
  4. Peck S, Peck L. Selected aspects of the art and science of facial esthetics. Semin Orthod 1995;1:105-26 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1073-8746(95)80097-2
  5. Scott SH, Johnston LE Jr. The perceived impact of extraction and nonextraction treatments on matched samples of African American patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;116:352-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(99)70249-0
  6. Bowman SJ, Johnston LE Jr. The esthetic impact of extraction and nonextraction treatments on Caucasian patients. Angle Orthod. 2000 Feb;70(1):3-10.
  7. Wangerin K, Gubisch W. Improving the contour and preserving the profile of the lower third of the face. Mund Kiefer Gesichtschir. 1997 May;1 Suppl 1:S39-49. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03043506
  8. Soh J, Chew MT, Wong HB. A comparative assessment of the perception of Chinese facial profile esthetics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005 Jun; 127(6):692-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.02.018
  9. Konstantonis D. The impact of extraction vs nonextraction treatment on soft tissue changes in Class I borderline malocclusions. Angle Orthod. 2012 Mar;82(2):209-17. Epub 2011 Sep 20. https://doi.org/10.2319/051911-339.1
  10. Xu TM, Liu Y, Huang W, Lin JX. Cephalometric comparison of soft-tissue morphology between extraction and non-extraction orthodontic treatment in borderline cases. Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao. 2004 Dec;36(6):650-4.
  11. Bell R, Kiyak HA, Joondeph DR, McNeill RW, Wallen TR. Perceptions of facial profile and their influence on the decision to undergo orthognathic surgery. Am J Orthod. 1985 Oct;88(4):323-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(85)90132-0
  12. Lines PA, Lines RR, Lines CA. Profilemetrics and facial esthetics. Am J Orthod. 1978 Jun;73(6):648-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(78)90225-7
  13. Naini FB, Donaldson AN, McDonald F, Cobourne MT. Assessing the influence of lower facial profile convexity on perceived attractiveness in the orthognathic patient, clinician, and layperson. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2012 Feb 9.
  14. Naini FB, Donaldson AN, McDonald F, Cobourne MT. Assessing the influence of asymmeftry affecting the mandible and chin point on perceived attractiveness in the orthognathic patient, clinician, and layperson. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012 Jan;70(1):192-206. Epub 2011 May 14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2010.12.055
  15. Naini FB, Donaldson AN, Cobourne MT, McDonald F. Assessing the influence of mandibular prominence on perceived attractiveness in the orthognathic patient, clinician, and layperson. Eur J Orthod. 2011 Aug 16.
  16. Howells DJ, Shaw WC. The validity and reliability of ratings of dental and facial attractiveness for epidemiologic use. Am J Orthod. 1985 Nov;88(5): 402-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(85)90067-3
  17. Phillips C, Griffin T, Bennett E. Perception of facial attractiveness by patients, peers, and professionals. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg. 1995;10(2): 127-35.

Cited by

  1. Measurement of three‐dimensional changes in lip vermilion in adult female patients after orthodontic extraction: a retrospective longitudinal study vol.17, pp.1, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13005-021-00263-5