Advertisement

European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry

, Volume 16, Issue 5, pp 391–396 | Cite as

Clinical success and longevity of band and loop compared to crown and loop space maintainers

  • M. A. QudeimatEmail author
  • I. S. Sasa
Original Scientific Article
First Online:

Abstract

Aim

To prospectively evaluate the success and survival rates of band and loop (B&L) compared to crown and loop (C&L) space maintainers.

Methods

Thirty-six children were divided into two groups (18 B&Ls and 18 C&Ls) matched for gender, age and the extracted tooth. For the study group, all clinical procedures were performed by the same paediatric dentist. Regular follow-up appointments were scheduled at 4–6 months. Comparisons in survival time and variables which might have affected the mean survival time were tested using Log rank and Chi-square tests.

Results

A total of 16 girls and 20 boys (3.4–6.3 years old) were included. The overall failure rate was 53 %. For B&Ls, the failure rate was 83 % compared to 22 % for C&Ls. The main reason for failure of B&Ls was decementation (87 %), while for C&Ls, it was solder breakage (75 %). The mean survival time for B&Ls was 18.8 months, and for C&L, it was 40.4 months (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

The failure rate and mean survival time for C&Ls were clinically and statistically significantly better than those for B&Ls. Depending on the clinical presentation of the abutment tooth and the intended life expectancy of the space maintainer among other factors, it is recommended that, where a space maintainer is indicated in the primary dentition, preference is given to C&L over B&L space maintainers.

Keywords

Space maintainer Crown and loop Band and loop Longevity 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Alexander SA, Askari M, Lewis P. The premature loss of primary first molars: space loss to molar occlusal relationships and facial patterns. Angle Orthod. 2015;85:218–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry. Guideline on management of the developing dentition and occlusion in paediatric dentistry. Pediatr Dent. 2014;36:251–63.Google Scholar
  3. Bell RA, Dean JA, McDonald RE, Avery DR. Managing space problems. In: Dean JA, McDonald RE, Avery DR, editors. McDonald and Avery’s dentistry for the child and adolescent. 9th ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 2011. pp. 550–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bhujel N, Duggal M, Munyombwe T, Godson J, Day P. The effect of premature extraction of primary teeth on the subsequent need for orthodontic treatment. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2014;15:393–400.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown RA, Swanson Beck J. Survival analysis. In: Brown RA, Swanson Beck J, editors. Medical statistics on personal computers. 2nd ed. London: BMJ Publishing Group; 1995. pp. 99–118.Google Scholar
  6. Clinch LM, Healy MJR. A longitudinal study of the results of premature extraction of deciduous teeth between 3–4 and 13–14 years of age. Dent Pract. 1959;9:109–28.Google Scholar
  7. Cristensen J, Fields H. Space maintenance in the primary dentition. In: Casamassimo PS, Fields HW, McTigue DJ, Nowak AJ, editors. Paediatric dentistry, infancy through adolescence. 5th ed. St. Louis: Saunders Co; 2013. pp. 379–84.Google Scholar
  8. Cutler SJ, Ederer F. Maximum utilization of the life table method in analyzing survival. J Chronic Dis. 1958;8:699–712.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Davies JA. Dental restoration longevity: a critique of the life table method of analysis. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1987;15:202–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Fathian M, Kennedy DB, Nouri MR. Laboratory-made space maintainers: a 7-year retrospective study from private paediatric dental practice. Pediatr Dent. 2007;29:500–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Fields HW. Treatment of nonskeletal problems in preadolescent children. In: Proffit WR, Fields HW, Sarver DM, editors. Contemporary orthodontics. 5th ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 2013. pp. 446–71.Google Scholar
  12. Hill CJ, Sorenson HW, Mink JR. Space maintenance in a child dental care program. J Am Dent Assoc. 1975;90:811–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Lin YT, Chang LC. Space changes after premature loss of the mandibular primary first molar: a longitudinal study. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 1998;22:311–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Lin YT, Lin WH, Lin YT. Immediate and 6-month space changes after premature loss of a primary maxillary first molar. J Am Dent Assoc. 2007;138:362–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Macena MC, Katz CRT, Heimer MV, de Oliveira e Silva JF, Costa LB. Space changes after premature loss of deciduous molars among Brazilian children. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011;140:771–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Millett DT, Mandall NA, Mattick RC, Hickman J, Glenny AM. Adhesives for bonded molar tubes during fixed brace treatment. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;15:CD008236. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008236.pub2.Google Scholar
  17. Nouri MR, Kennedy DB. Optimal fit of chairside-fabricated distal shoe space maintainer. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2013;14:351–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Qudeimat MA, Fayle SA. The longevity of space maintainers: a retrospective study. Pediatr Dent. 1998;20:267–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Qudeimat MA, Fayle SA. The use of space maintainers at a UK paediatric dentistry department. ASDC J Dent Child. 1999;66:383–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Rajab LD. Clinical performance and survival of space maintainers: evaluation over a period of 5 years. ASDC J Dent Child. 2002;69:156–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Rönnerman A. The effect of early loss of primary molars on tooth eruption and space conditions. A longitudinal study. Acta Odontol Scand. 1977;35:229–39.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Rönnerman A, Thilander B. A longitudinal study on the effect of unilateral extraction of primary molars. Scand J Dent Res. 1977;85:362–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Sasa IS, Hasan AA, Qudeimat MA. Longevity of band and loop space maintainers using glass ionomer cement: a prospective study. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2009;10:6–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Thornton JB. The space maintainer: case reports of misuse and failures. Gen Dent. 1982;30:64–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Tunc ES, Bayrak S, Tuloglu N, Egilmez T, Isci D. Evaluation of survival of three different fixed space maintainers. Pediatr Dent. 2012;34:e97–102.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Tunison W, Flores-Mir C, ElBadrawy H, Nassar U, El-Bialy T. Dental arch space changes following premature loss of primary first molars: a systematic review. Pediatr Dent. 2008;30:297–302.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Wright GZ, Kennedy DB. Space control in the primary and mixed dentitions. Dent Clin North Am. 1978;22:579–601.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Developmental and Preventive Sciences, Faculty of DentistryKuwait UniversityKuwaitKuwait
  2. 2.Department of Developmental DentistryUniversity of Texas Health Science CentreSan AntonioUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options