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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tyagi, Manisha, Rana, Vivek, Srivastava, Nikhil, Kaushik, Noopur, Moirangthem, Elizabeth, Gaur, Vidisha
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