Longevity of Band and Loop Space Maintainers Using Glass Ionomer Cement: A Prospective Study
- 171 Downloads
AIM: This was to prospectively investigate the success and median survival rate of band and loop space maintainers using glass ionomer luting cement for attachment. METHODS: A total of 40 children (22 females and 18 males) between the ages of 3.4 and 7.3 years participated in the study. Each patient received only one band and loop space maintainer. For each child, the same paediatric dentist carried out all diagnosis, band selection, and impression taking and appliance cementation. The same dental technician fabricated all appliances. The luting cement used was Ketac™-Cem-Maxicap™. Regular follow up appointments were scheduled at 4–6 months intervals. Variables, which might have affected the median survival time for the appliances were tested using Log-Rank and Chi-square tests. RESULTS: 40% of the band and loop space maintainers were successful and 57.5% failed during the study period (40 months). The most common cause of failure was decementation (82% of all failed cases). The overall median survival time was 19.9 months. Appliances fitted in the maxillary and mandibular left side of the mouth showed a statistically higher survival rate than those fitted in the right side (maxillary left quadrant = 35 months, mandibular left quadrant = 28 months, maxillary right quadrant =14 months, mandibular right quadrant = 16 months) (pS < 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: Although the overall median survival time was clinically acceptable(19.9 months), the failure rate of the band and loop space maintainers in general was high (57.5%). The main reason for failure was decementation of the band. Further studies are required to compare glass ionomer cements with more recent resin modified luting cements.
KeywordsSpace Maintainer Glass Ionomer Band and Loop Success
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Brown RA, Swanson Beck J. Survival analysis. In: Brown RA, Swanson Beck J (eds). Medical statistics on personal computers. London: BMJ Publishing Group, 1995: 99–118.Google Scholar
- Christensen JR, Fields HW Jr. Space maintenance in the primary dentition. In: Pinkham JR, Casamassimo PS, Fields HW Jr, McTigue DJ, Nowak AJ (eds). Pediatric Dentistry: infancy through adolescence. Mussouri: Elsevier Saunders, 2005: 419–448.Google Scholar
- Kirzioglu Z, Ozay MS. Success of reinforced fiber material space maintainers. J Dent Child 2004;71:158–162.Google Scholar
- Millett DT, Glenny AM, Mattick CR, Hickman J, Mandall NA. Adhesives for fixed orthodontic bands. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007; 18: CD004485. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.Google Scholar
- Rajab LD. Clinical performance and survival of space maintainers: Evaluation over a period of 5 years. J Dent Child 2002;69:156–160.Google Scholar
- Tulunogu O, Ulusu T, Genc Y. An evaluation of survival of space maintainers: a six-year follow up study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2005;6:74–84.Google Scholar