SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Türk Diş Hekimliği Araştırma Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 1 Sayı: 1

Evaluation of Clinical Success of Lingual Arch Applience used as Space Maintainer

Yer tutucu Olarak Kullanılan Lingual Ark Apareyinin Klinik Başarısının Değerlendirilmesi

Hatice Açıkel0000-0002-6889-0287
Emine Şen Tunç(Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi)0000-0002-4397-8952
Pages
11–17
Publication Date
2022-04-24
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Also strict moist control protocols must be employed before space maintainer cementation to overwhelm to problems related to decementation of lingual arch space maintainer if glass ionomer cement was chosen as a bonding agent

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: It was aimed to evaluate the clinical success of lingual arc appliance as a space maintainer in a group of children.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Subjects and Methods: : A total of 55 pediatric dental patients (8.7±0.6 years) who worn lingual arch appliance were included.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Also strict moist control protocols must be employed before space maintainer cementation to overwhelm to problems related to decementation of lingual arch space maintainer if glass ionomer cement was chosen as a bonding agent
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Çocuk · Lingual Ark Apareyi · Yertutucu

Abstract

Aim: It was aimed to evaluate the clinical success of lingual arc appliance as a space maintainer in a group of children. Subjects and Methods: : A total of 55 pediatric dental patients (8.7±0.6 years) who worn lingual arch appliance were included. Mean survival time of the Lingual archs and the failure reasons was recorded. Descriptive statistics were calculated. Cumulative survival rates of lingual arch space maintainer were estimated via Kaplan-Meier methods. The contribution of covariables age, sex to the survival function was further analyzed by means of the Cox regression model. Results: Mean follow-up period was 15.4 ± 6.2 months. The most common cause of failure was decementation and the mean survival time of lingual arch space maintainers was 6 months. According to the Cox regression analysis no age and sex variables to be statistically significant to predict the survival of space maintainers (p>0.05). Conclusion: Regular follow-ups should be scheduled for patients who worn lingual arch space maintainer. Also strict moist control protocols must be employed before space maintainer cementation to overwhelm to problems related to decementation of lingual arch space maintainer if glass ionomer cement was chosen as a bonding agent

Özet

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı bir grup çocuk hastada yertutucu olarak kullanılan lingual ark apareyinin klinik başarısının değerlendirilmesidir. Birey ve Yöntem: Çalışmaya lingual ark yertutucu uygulanan 55 çocuk hasta (ort 8,7±0,6 yaş) dahil edildi. Lingaul ark apareylerin ortalama sağ kalım süreleri ve başarısızlık nedenleri kaydedildi. Tanımlayıcı istatistikler hesaplandı. Lingual ark apareylerin ortalama sağ kalım süreleri Kaplan-Meier Analizi ile belirlendi. Yaş, cinsiyet gibi faktörlerin ortalama yaşam süresine etkisi Cox regresyon analizi ile hesaplandı. Bulgular: Çalışmada ortalama takip süresi 15,4± 6,2 aydır. En önemli başarısızlık nedeni bant desimantasyonu olarak bulunmuştur. Lingual ark yer tutucunun ortalama sağ kalım süresi 6 aydır. Cox regresyon analizi sonuçlarına göre; yaş ve cinsiyet değişkenlerinin lingual ark yer tutucuların yaşam sürelerine etkisinin önemli olmadığı belirlenmiştir (p>0.05) Sonuç: Lingual ark yertutucuların desimatasyon ile ilgili problemlerinin önüne geçebilmek için düzenli kontrollerin yanı sıra, yer tutucuların yapıştırma işlemlerine dikkat edilmeli, cam iyonomer esaslı yapıştıcı kullanıldığında sıkı nem kontrolü önlemleri alınmalıdır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Açıkel, H., Tunç, E. Ş. (2022). Evaluation of Clinical Success of Lingual Arch Applience used as Space Maintainer. Türk Diş Hekimliği Araştırma Dergisi, Cilt: 1 Sayı: 1, 11–17. https://ajindex.com/articles/1622121

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. Brothwell DJ. Guidelines on the use of space maintainers following premature loss of primary teeth. J Can Dent Assoc. 1997;63:753- 66.
  2. Ngan P, Alkire RC, Fields H Jr. Management of space problems in the primary and mixed dentitions. J Am Dent Assoc. 1999;130:1330-9. doi: 10.14219/jada.archive.1999.0403.
  3. Ghafari J. Early treatment of dental arch problems. I. Space maintenance, space gaining. Quintessence Int. 1986;17:423-32.
  4. Tulunoglu O, Ulusu T, Genç Y. An evaluation of survival of space maintainers: a six-year follow-up study. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2005;15;6:74-84.
  5. Richardson ME. The relationship between the relative amount of space present in the deciduous dental arch and the rate and degree of space closure subsequent to the extraction of a deciduous molar. Dent Pract Dent Rec. 1965;16:111-8.
  6. Kamki H, Kalaskar R, Balasubramanian S, Badhe H, Kalaskar A. Clinical effectiveness of fiber-reinforced composite space maintainer and band and loop space maintainer in a pediatric patient: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2021;14(Suppl 1):S82-S93. doi: 10.5005/jpjournals- 10005-2044.
  7. Mosharrafian S, Baghalian A, Hamrah MH, Kargar M. Clinical evaluation for space maintainer after unilateral loss of primary first molar in the early mixed dentition stage. Int J Dent. 2021;7:3967164. doi:10.1155/2021/3967164.
  8. Gianelly AA. Leeway space and the resolution of crowding in the mixed dentition. Semin Orthod. 1995;1:188-94. doi: 10.1016/ s1073-8746(95)80022-0.
  9. Qudeimat MA, Fayle SA. The longevity of space maintainers: a retrospective study. Pediatr Dent. 1998;20:267-72.
  10. Qudeimat MA, Fayle SA. The use of space maintainers at a UK Paediatric Dentistry department. ASDC J Dent Child. 1999;66:383- 6.
  11. Rajab LD. Clinical performance and survival of space maintainers: Evaluation over a period of 5 Years. J Dent Child. 2002;69:156–60.
  12. Rebellato J, Lindauer SJ, Rubenstein LK, Isaacson RJ, Davidovitch M, Vroom K. Lower arch perimeter preservation using the lingual arch. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1997;112:449-56. doi: 10.1016/s0889- 5406(97)70054-4.
  13. Owais AI, Rousan ME, Badran SA, Abu Alhaija ES. Effectiveness of a lower lingual arch as a space holding device. Eur J Orthod. 2011;33:37-42. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjq022.
  14. Law CS. Management of premature primary tooth loss in the child patient. J Calif Dent Assoc 2013;41:612-8.
  15. Fathian M, Kennedy DB, Nouri MR. Laboratory-made space maintainers: a 7-year retrospective study from private pediatric dental practice. Pediatr Dent. 2007;29:500-6.
  16. Moore TR, Kennedy DB. Bilateral space maintainers: a 7-year retrospective study from private practice. Pediatr Dent. 2006;28:499-505