Cargando…
Comparison of the Conventional Band and Loop Space Maintainers with Modified Space Maintainers: A Split-mouth Randomized Clinical Trial
AIM AND BACKGROUND: Space maintainers (SMs) are used to preserve space created by premature loss of primary teeth. The most commonly used band and loop (B&L) SMs have several demerits, e.g., non-functional, poor gingival health, limited survival, laboratory work for fabrication and multi-sitting...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8754275/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35082470 http://dx.doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2046 |
_version_ | 1784632237135757312 |
---|---|
author | Tyagi, Manisha Rana, Vivek Srivastava, Nikhil Kaushik, Noopur Moirangthem, Elizabeth Gaur, Vidisha |
author_facet | Tyagi, Manisha Rana, Vivek Srivastava, Nikhil Kaushik, Noopur Moirangthem, Elizabeth Gaur, Vidisha |
author_sort | Tyagi, Manisha |
collection | PubMed |
description | AIM AND BACKGROUND: Space maintainers (SMs) are used to preserve space created by premature loss of primary teeth. The most commonly used band and loop (B&L) SMs have several demerits, e.g., non-functional, poor gingival health, limited survival, laboratory work for fabrication and multi-sitting procedure, etc. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of conventional B&L SMs with conventional tube and loop (CTL), bonded tube and loop (BTL) and bonded B&L in terms of gingival health, survival time, and patients’ and parents’ satisfaction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifteen children between 4 years and 8 years of age with at least two fresh extraction sites of primary molars contra- or bilaterally in each child (total 30 fresh extraction sites) were included in the study. Conventional B&L on one site while bonded loop (BL)/CTL or BTL on the other site were delivered, based on random allocation. An evaluation was done at 1st, 3rd, 6th, and 9th months for survival time, gingival health, and patients’/parents’ satisfaction. Results were statistically analyzed using independent t-test and Chi-square test under SPSS version 20.0 software. RESULTS: 100% B&L and CTL while only 60% BL and 80% BTL survived till the end of the study. For gingival health, statistically significant differences were obtained at 1st, 3rd, 6th, and 9th month's intervals (p < 0.05) when CTL was compared with B&L, BL, and BTL. In terms of patients’ acceptance, all the SMs were well accepted by the patients. However, on the intergroup comparison, patients’ acceptance was higher with bonded SMs. CONCLUSION: Conventional tube and loop SMs were found to be most efficacious in terms of survival time, gingival health, and patients’ satisfaction. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: To find a better alternative for the conventional B&L SMs. HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE: 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(S-1):S63–S68. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8754275 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-87542752022-01-25 Comparison of the Conventional Band and Loop Space Maintainers with Modified Space Maintainers: A Split-mouth Randomized Clinical Trial Tyagi, Manisha Rana, Vivek Srivastava, Nikhil Kaushik, Noopur Moirangthem, Elizabeth Gaur, Vidisha Int J Clin Pediatr Dent Research Article AIM AND BACKGROUND: Space maintainers (SMs) are used to preserve space created by premature loss of primary teeth. The most commonly used band and loop (B&L) SMs have several demerits, e.g., non-functional, poor gingival health, limited survival, laboratory work for fabrication and multi-sitting procedure, etc. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of conventional B&L SMs with conventional tube and loop (CTL), bonded tube and loop (BTL) and bonded B&L in terms of gingival health, survival time, and patients’ and parents’ satisfaction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifteen children between 4 years and 8 years of age with at least two fresh extraction sites of primary molars contra- or bilaterally in each child (total 30 fresh extraction sites) were included in the study. Conventional B&L on one site while bonded loop (BL)/CTL or BTL on the other site were delivered, based on random allocation. An evaluation was done at 1st, 3rd, 6th, and 9th months for survival time, gingival health, and patients’/parents’ satisfaction. Results were statistically analyzed using independent t-test and Chi-square test under SPSS version 20.0 software. RESULTS: 100% B&L and CTL while only 60% BL and 80% BTL survived till the end of the study. For gingival health, statistically significant differences were obtained at 1st, 3rd, 6th, and 9th month's intervals (p < 0.05) when CTL was compared with B&L, BL, and BTL. In terms of patients’ acceptance, all the SMs were well accepted by the patients. However, on the intergroup comparison, patients’ acceptance was higher with bonded SMs. CONCLUSION: Conventional tube and loop SMs were found to be most efficacious in terms of survival time, gingival health, and patients’ satisfaction. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: To find a better alternative for the conventional B&L SMs. HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE: 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(S-1):S63–S68. Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC8754275/ /pubmed/35082470 http://dx.doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2046 Text en Copyright © 2021; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/© The Author(s). 2021 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and non-commercial reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Tyagi, Manisha Rana, Vivek Srivastava, Nikhil Kaushik, Noopur Moirangthem, Elizabeth Gaur, Vidisha Comparison of the Conventional Band and Loop Space Maintainers with Modified Space Maintainers: A Split-mouth Randomized Clinical Trial |
title | Comparison of the Conventional Band and Loop Space Maintainers with Modified Space Maintainers: A Split-mouth Randomized Clinical Trial |
title_full | Comparison of the Conventional Band and Loop Space Maintainers with Modified Space Maintainers: A Split-mouth Randomized Clinical Trial |
title_fullStr | Comparison of the Conventional Band and Loop Space Maintainers with Modified Space Maintainers: A Split-mouth Randomized Clinical Trial |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of the Conventional Band and Loop Space Maintainers with Modified Space Maintainers: A Split-mouth Randomized Clinical Trial |
title_short | Comparison of the Conventional Band and Loop Space Maintainers with Modified Space Maintainers: A Split-mouth Randomized Clinical Trial |
title_sort | comparison of the conventional band and loop space maintainers with modified space maintainers: a split-mouth randomized clinical trial |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8754275/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35082470 http://dx.doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2046 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT tyagimanisha comparisonoftheconventionalbandandloopspacemaintainerswithmodifiedspacemaintainersasplitmouthrandomizedclinicaltrial AT ranavivek comparisonoftheconventionalbandandloopspacemaintainerswithmodifiedspacemaintainersasplitmouthrandomizedclinicaltrial AT srivastavanikhil comparisonoftheconventionalbandandloopspacemaintainerswithmodifiedspacemaintainersasplitmouthrandomizedclinicaltrial AT kaushiknoopur comparisonoftheconventionalbandandloopspacemaintainerswithmodifiedspacemaintainersasplitmouthrandomizedclinicaltrial AT moirangthemelizabeth comparisonoftheconventionalbandandloopspacemaintainerswithmodifiedspacemaintainersasplitmouthrandomizedclinicaltrial AT gaurvidisha comparisonoftheconventionalbandandloopspacemaintainerswithmodifiedspacemaintainersasplitmouthrandomizedclinicaltrial |