Journals / International Dental Research / 2021 / Cilt: 11 - Sayı: Supplement 1

Survival and clinical evaluation of various space maintainers used for early primary tooth loss

Pages
222–227
Publication Date
2022-10-19
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)

Conclusion: The successful use of space maintainers for the premature loss of primary tooth space is achieved by regular follow-ups with the patient’s parents, patient cooperation, and proper space maintainers and choice of material.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: This retrospective study investigated the survival rate and clinical performance of space maintainers fitted in 50 patients aged from 6-11 years in the Department of Pediatric Dentistry at Selçuk University, Faculty of Dentistry between 2016 and 2019.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Results: Follow-up loss occurred in 18% of 61 space maintainers.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: The successful use of space maintainers for the premature loss of primary tooth space is achieved by regular follow-ups with the patient’s parents, patient cooperation, and proper space maintainers and choice of material.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2016 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Aim: This retrospective study investigated the survival rate and clinical performance of space maintainers fitted in 50 patients aged from 6-11 years in the Department of Pediatric Dentistry at Selçuk University, Faculty of Dentistry between 2016 and 2019. Methodology: Sixty-one subjects were included in the study. The clinical examination included performing the gingival index (GI) and the plaque index. The values of the indexes were determined and compared, and the failures of retainers were recorded and analyzed in terms of survival. Results: Follow-up loss occurred in 18% of 61 space maintainers. A total of 10% of the evaluated 50 space maintainers had failed due to breakage. By using the Kaplan–Meier method, the estimated mean survival time for space maintainers was 13 months. Lingual arches had the lowest mean survival time of 12 months. Band and loops and removable partial dentures had a similar probability of survival. A significant decrease was observed in the time-dependent evaluation of the means of plaque and gingival indexes; however, no significant difference was found between space maintainer types. Conclusion: The successful use of space maintainers for the premature loss of primary tooth space is achieved by regular follow-ups with the patient’s parents, patient cooperation, and proper space maintainers and choice of material.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÖZÜDOĞRU, S., TOSUN, G. (2022). Survival and clinical evaluation of various space maintainers used for early primary tooth loss. International Dental Research, Cilt: 11 - Sayı: Supplement 1, 222–227. https://ajindex.com/articles/539499

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Law, C. S. (2013). Management of premature primary tooth loss in the child patient. J Calif Dent Assoc, 41(8), 612-618
  2. Deshpande, S. S., Bendgude, V. D., & Kokkali, V. V. (2018). Survival of Bonded Space Maintainers: A Systematic Review. International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry, 11(5), 440. (Crossref
  3. Qudeimat, M. A., & Fayle, S. A. (1998). The longevity of space maintainers: a retrospective study. Pediatric dentistry, 20, 267-272
  4. Setia, V., Pandit, I. K., Srivastava, N., Gugnani, N., & Sekhon, H. K. (2013). Space maintainers in dentistry: Past to present. Journal of clinical and diagnostic research: JCDR, 7(10), 2402. (Crossref
  5. Baroni, C., Franchini, A., & Rimondini, L. (1994). Survival of different types of space maintainers. Pediatric dentistry, 16, 360-360. (Crossref
  6. Rajah, L. D. (2002). Clinical performance and survival of space maintainers: Evaluation over a period of 5 years. Journal of Dentistry for Children, 69(2), 156-160
  7. Fathian, M., Kennedy, D. B., Nouri, R. M., & Ped, D. (2007). Laboratory-made space maintainers: a 7-year retrospective study from private pediatric dental practice. Pediatric dentistry, 29(6), 500-506
  8. Moore, T. R., & Kennedy, D. B. (2006). Bilateral space maintainers: a 7-year retrospective study from private practice. Pediatric dentistry, 28(6), 499-505
  9. Tulunoglu, O., Ulusu, T., & Genç, Y. (2005). An evaluation of survival of space maintainers: a six-year follow-up study. The journal of contemporary dental practice, 6(1), 74-84. (Crossref
  10. Tunc, E. S., Bayrak, S., Tuloglu, N., Egilmez, T., & Isci, D. (2012). Evaluation of survival of 3 different fixed space maintainers. Pediatric dentistry, 34(4), 97E-102E
  11. Garg, A., Samadi, F., Jaiswal, J. N., & Saha, S. (2014). 'Metal to resin': A comparative evaluation of conventional band and loop space maintainer with the fiber reinforced composite resin space maintainer in children. Journal of Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, 32(2), 111. (Crossref
  12. Arikan, F., Eronat, N., Candan, Ü., & Boyacio lu, H. (2007). Periodontal conditions associated with space maintainers following two different dental health education techniques. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry, 31(4), 229- 234. (Crossref
  13. Setia, V., Pandit, I. K., Srivastava, N., Gugnani, N., & Gupta, M. (2014). Banded vs bonded space maintainers: finding better way out. International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry, 7(2), 97. (Crossref