Comparative Evaluation of Survival Rate Gingival Health and Patient's Acceptance of Conventional Band and Loop and Prefabricated Band and Loop in Primary Teeth: An In Vivo Study
Aim: To compare and evaluate the survival rate, gingival health, and patient acceptance of traditional band and loop (B&L) and company-made B&L space maintainers in deciduous teeth—an in vivo study.
Materials and methods: A total of 50 patients between 4 and 9 years of age-group, having loss of deciduous first molar in any of the arches, were included in the present study, which was divided into two groups. Group I consisted of the conventional B&L group, and group II consisted of the prefabricated B&L group.
Results: The two groups showed no statistical significance in the 1st month, 3rd month, and 6th month in cement loss, failure of soldering, distortion of B&L fracture. The survival rate for the conventional group was 92%, whereas for prefabricated group was 100% at 6 months of follow-up. Company-made B&L showed significantly better gingival health (p = 0.004) at 6 months of follow-up and a better patient's acceptance rate.
Conclusion: Prefabricated B&L appliances are newly developed space maintainers that are superior to conventional B&L appliances as they have a higher success rate and are more rational in design.
Tahririan D, Safaripour M, Eshghi A, et al. Comparison of the longevity of prefabricated and conventional band and loops in children's primary teeth. Dent Res J 2019;16(6):428–434.
Nayak UA, Loius J, Sajeev R, et al. Band and loop space maintainer-made easy. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2004;22(3):134–136.
Tyagi M, Rana V, Srivastava N, et al. Comparison of the conventional band and loop space maintainers with modified space maintainers: a split-mouth randomized clinical trial. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2021;14(Suppl 1):S63–S68. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2046
Chawla HS, Goyal A, Khera N. Modified space maintainers. J Indian Sot Pedo Prev Dent 1984;2(1):34–35.
Christensen J, Fields H. Space maintenance in the primary dentition. Pediatric Dentistry: Infancy through Adolescence, 4th edition. St Louis, Missouri: Elsevier Saunders; 2005. pp. 423–430.
Kisling E, Høffding J. Premature loss of primary teeth: part III, drifting patterns for different types of teeth after loss of adjoining teeth. ASDC J Dent Child 1979;46(1):34–38.
Kirzioğlu Z, Ertürk MS. Success of reinforced fiber material space maintainers. J Dent Child (Chic) 2004;71(2):158–162.
Setia V, Kumar Pandit I, 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
Tunc ES, Bayrak S, Tuloglu N, et al. Evaluation of survival of 3 different fixed space maintainers. Pediatr Dent 2012;34(4):e97–e102.
Abdulhameed SM, Mahmood MAK, Ahmed AS. Evaluation of clinical success and survival rates of different types of space maintainers used in pediatric dentistry. J Adv Med Res 2014;4(4):1–10.
Sasa IS, Hasan AA, Qudeimat MA. Longevity of band and loop space maintainers using glass ionomer cement: a prospective study. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2009;10(1):6–10. DOI: 10.1007/BF03262659