Clinical Evaluation of Different Designs of Fixed Space Maintainer: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Moataz-bellah E Hemdan, Ibrahim Hassan H El Kalla, Rizk A El Agamy
Keywords :
Band and Loop, Fixed space maintainer, Space maintainer, Tube and Loop
Citation Information :
Hemdan ME, El Kalla IH, El Agamy RA. Clinical Evaluation of Different Designs of Fixed Space Maintainer: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2024; 17 (4):442-450.
Purpose: Evaluation of survival rates for three space maintainers (SMs) of different designs compared to the standard one.
Materials and methods: A total of 52 extraction sites in children aged 4–7 years with prematurely lost primary molars were selected for this study. The whole sample was divided into four groups of 13 each. In group I, Band and Loop (B&L); group II, single-sided Band and Loop (Ss B&L); group III, Direct Bonded Wire (DBW); and group IV, Tube and Loop (T&L). Children were recalled at 3, 6, 9, 12, and 15 months. Cumulative survival rates of SMs were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method with a logrank test.
Results: Although there was a nonsignificant difference in the number of failed cases among all groups, the overall survival rate for group I was 69.2%, group II was 53.8%, group III was 38.5%, and group IV was 30.8% at the end of the study. The failure types for B&L were solder breakage (75% of the total failure rate) and cement dissolution (25%); for Ss B&L, they were solder breakage with lost loop (50%), soft tissue impingement (33%), and dislodgment (17%); for DBW, they were composite-wire interface debonding (75%) and enamel-composite interface debonding (25%); and finally, for T&L, they were lost T&L (56%), soft tissue impingement (22%), and total loss (22%).
Conclusion: Banded SMs survived for a longer time than bonded ones, with superior performance for B&L compared to Ss B&L. In addition, bonded SMs required strict isolation conditions. DBW could be used in the maxilla rather than the mandible and was preferable for older children.
Barbería E, Lucavechi T, Cárdenas D, et al. Free-end space maintainers: design, utilization and advantages. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2006;31(1):5–8. DOI: 10.17796/jcpd.31.1.p87112173240x80m
Kirzioglu Z, Ozay MSZ, Ozay MS. Success of reinforced fiber material space maintainers. J Dent Child 2004;71(2):158–162.
Wright CZ, Kennedy DB. Space control in the primary and mixed dentitions. Dent Clin North Am 1978;22:579–601.
Quadeimat MA, Fayle SA. The longevity of space maintainers: a retrospective study. Pediatr Dent 1998;20(4):267–272.
Nayak UA, Loius J, Sajeev R, et al. Band and loop space maintainer—made easy. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2004;22:134–136.
Caroll TP. Prevention of gingival submergence of fixed unilateral space maintainers. J Dent Child 1982;49:48–51.
The Clinical Effectiveness Committee of The Faculty of Dental Surgery of The Royal College of Surgeons of England. Extraction of Primary Teeth—Balance and Compensation. 2001.
Laing E, Ashley P, Naini FB, et al. Space maintenance. Int J Paediatr Dent 2009;19(3):155–162. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-263X.2008.00951.x
Achmad H, Taya. The use of space maintainer in pediatric dentistry: a systematic review. European J Mol Clin Med 2021;8(2):1532–1545.
Simsek R, Yilmaz Y, Gurbuz T. Clinical evaluation of simple fixed space maintainers bonded with flow composite resin. J Dent Child 2004;71:163–168.
Ramakrishnan M, Dhanalakshmi R, Subramanian EMG. Survival rate of different fixed posterior space maintainers used in paediatric dentistry—A systematic review. Saudi Dent J 2019;31(2):165–172.
Srivastava N, Grover J, Panthri P. Space maintenance with an innovative “tube and loop” space maintainer (Nikhil Appliance). Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2016;9(1):86–89. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1340
Mittal S, Sharma A, Sharma AK, et al. Banded versus single–sided bonded space maintainers: a comparative study. Indian J Dent Sci 2018;10:29–36.
Swaine TJ, Wright GZ. Direct bonding applied to space maintenance. ASDC J Dent Child 1976;43(6):401–405.
Graber TM. Orthodontics: Principles and Practice, 3rd edition. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Company; 1992. p. 572.
Finn SB. Clinical Pedodontics, 4th edition. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Company; 1998. p. 354.
Moses J, Sekar PK, Raj SS, et al. Modified band and loop space maintainer: Mayne's space maintainer. Int J Pedod Rehabil 2018;3:84–86. DOI: 10.4103/ijpr.ijpr_4_18
Rao AK, Sarkar S. Changes in the arch length following premature loss of deciduous molars. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 1999;17(1):29–32.
Fathian M, Kennedy DB, Nouri MR. Laboratory-made space maintainers: a 7-year retrospective study from private pediatric dental practice. Pediatr Dent 2007;29(6):500–506.
Baroni C, Franchini A, Rimondini L. Survival of different types of space maintainers. Pediatr Dent 1993;16:360–361.
Rajab LD. Clinical performance and survival of space maintainers: evaluation over a period of 5 years. ASDC J Dent Child 2002;69(2):156–160, 124.
Subramaniam P, Babu GKL, Sunny R. Glass fiber-reinforced composite resin as a space maintainer: a clinical study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2008;26(Suppl 3):S98–S103.
Setia V, Pandit IK, Srivastava N, et al. Banded vs bonded space maintainers: finding better way out. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2014;7(2):97–104. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1245
Güleç S, Doğan MC, Seydaoğlu G. Clinical evaluation of a new bonded space maintainer. J Clin Orthod 2014;48(12):784–790.