Aim: This systematic review was aimed at evaluating the average survival time and the various factors which determine the longevity of bonded space maintainers.
Background: Although a meta-analysis could not be performed from the available literature, this review emphasizes the various factors contributing to the success of bonded space maintainers and its relevance during the planning of bonded space maintainers.
Review results: The study selection criteria included in-vivo randomized and non-randomized clinical trials performed which was published in English. The databases searched were Pubmed, EBSCOhost and Google scholar, wherein the articles published from 1st January 1995 to 31st December 2015 were selected in the review.
Conclusion: From the existing data, it can be concluded that the average survival period of bonded space maintainers is 11.2 months. However, there is a necessity for additional clinical trials with strict protocols to better the level of evidence.
Clinical significance: From the various articles included in the review, the longevity of bonded space maintainers was found to be comparable to the banded space maintainers. Hence, the bonded space maintainers can be a suitable alternative to the banded space maintainers in pediatric dentistry.
Nayak UA, Loius J, Sajeev R, Peter J. Band and loop space maintainer-made easy. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2004; 22:134-136.
Qudeimat MA, Fayle SA. The longevity of space maintainers: A retrospective study. Pediatr Dent 1998;20:267-272.
Caroll TP. Prevention of gingival submergence of fixed unilateral space maintainers. J Dent Child 1982;49:48-51.
Swaine TJ, Wright GZ. Direct bonding applied to space maintenance. ASDC journal of dentistry for children. 1975 Dec; 43(6):401-405.
Kirzioglu Z, Erturk O, Semra M. Success of reinforced fibre material space maintainers. Journal of dentistry for children. 2004 May 15:71(2):158-162.
Subramaniam P, Babu GK, Sunny R. Glass fibre-reinforced composite resin as a space maintainer: A clinical study. Journal of Indian Society Of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry.2008 Dec 1;26(7):98.
Tunc Es, Bayrak S, Tuloglu N, Egilmez T, Isci D. Evaluation of survival of 3 different fixed space maintainers. Pediatric Dentistry. 2012 Jul 15;34(4):97E-102E.
Setia V, Pandit IK, Srivastava N, Gugnani N, Gupta M. Banded vs Bonded Space Maintainers: Finding Better Way Out. International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry. 2014 May;7(2):97.
Garg A, Samadi F, Jaiswal JN, Saha S. ‘Metal to resin’: A comparative evaluation of conventional band and loop space maintainer with the fiber reinforced composite resin space maintainer in children. J Indian! Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2014;32:111-116.
Gulec S, Dogan MC, Seydaoglu G. Clinical evaluation of a new bonded space maintainer. Journal of clinical orthodontics: JCO. 2014 Dec;48(12):784-790.
Bhasin AS. Simplified Bonded Space Maintainer- A Case Report. Journal Of the Indian Dental Association 2011 Jan 1;5(1):29.
Swartz ML, Philips RW, Clark HE. Long-term F release from glass ionomer cements. J Dent Res 1984;63:158-160.
Millett DT, McCabe JF, Bennett TG, Carter NE, Gordon PH. The effect of sandblasting on the retention of first molar orthodotic bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. Br J Orthod 1995;22:161-169.
Swaine TJ, Wright GZ. Direct bonding applied to space maintenance. J Dent Child 1976;43:401-405.
Zachrisson BU. Clinical experience with direct bonding in orthodontics. Am J Orthod 1977;71:440-448.