Top

European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry

Published in:

Open Access 01-10-2018 | Original Scientific Article

Methods of space maintenance for premature loss of a primary molar: a review

Authors: A. J. Ahmad, S. Parekh, P. F. Ashley

Published in: European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry | Issue 5/2018

Abstract

Aim

This critical appraisal attempts to answer the question: What is the best method of space maintenance (SM) following premature loss of a primary molar in children under 12 years old?

Methods

A search to identify studies relevant to the PICO was conducted. Single case reports and studies prior to 1986 were excluded. The principles of GRADE were followed to appraise the evidence.

Results

20 studies were identified, which evaluated 2265 space maintainers (SMs). Two studies were graded high quality, four moderate, eight low, and six very low. All studies reported on longevity outcomes and most on adverse effects.

Conclusions

There was no strong evidence favouring a particular SM, the following recommendations were made: (a) strong recommendations: In cases where rubber dam cannot be used clinicians should not use Glass Fibre Reinforced Composite Resin (GFRCR) SMs. (b) Weak recommendations: Crown and Loop SMs are recommended for loss of primary first molars; GFRCR SMs (placed under rubber dam) are recommended for loss of primary second molars. Bilateral SMs may have questionable efficacy and their use where there is loss of multiple molars in the same quadrant should be weighed against the risk of unwanted tooth movements, loss of a removable SM or no space maintenance at all.

Baroni C, Franchini A, Rimondini L. Survival of different types of space maintainers. Pediatr Dent. 1994;16:360–1.PubMed

Brill WA. The distal shoe space maintainer: chairside fabrication and clinical performance. Pediatr Dent. 2002;24:561–5.PubMed

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.

Davenport IB. The significance of the natural form and arrangement of dental arches of man, with consideration of the changes which occur as a result of their artificial derangement by filling or by extraction of teeth. Dental Cosmos. 1887;29:413–39.

Fathian M, Kennedy DB, Nouri MR. Laboratory-made space maintainers: a 7 year retrospective study from private pediatric practice. Pediatr Dent. 2007;29:500–6.

Garg A, Samadi F, Jaiswal JN, Saha S. ‘Metal to resin’: A comparative evaluation of conventional band and loop space maintainers with the fiber reinforced composite resin space maintainer in children. J Indian Soc Pedodontics Prevent Dent. 2014;32:111–6.CrossRef

Gulec S, Dogan MC, Seydaoglu G. Clinical evaluation of a new bonded space maintainer. J Clin Orthodont. 2014;48:784–90.

Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Schünemann HJ, Tugwell P, Knotterus A. GRADE guidelines: a new series of articles in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;64:380–2.CrossRef

Kargul B, Caglar E, Kabalay U. Glass fiber-reinforced composite resin as fixed space maintainers in children: 12-month clinical follow- up. J Dent Child. 2005;72:109–12.

Kirzioglu Z, Erturk MSO. Success of Reinforced Fiber Material Space Maintainers. J Dent Child. 2004;71:158–62.

Kumari BP, Kumari NR. Loss of space and changes in the dental arch after premature loss of the lower primary molar: a longitudinal study. J Indian Soc Pedodontics Prevent Dent. 2006;24:90–6.CrossRef

Kupietsky A, Tal E. The transpalatal arch: an alternative to the nance appliance for space maintenance. Paediatr Dent. 2007;29:235–8.

Kupietzky A. Clinical technique: removable appliance therapy for space maintenance following early loss of primary molars. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2007;8:30–4.CrossRef

Laing E, Ashley P, Farhad BN, Dalgit SG. Space maintenance. Int J Pediatr Dent. 2009;19:155–62.CrossRef

Moore TR, Kennedy DB. Bilateral space maintainers: a 7-yer retrospective study from private practice. Pediatr Dent. 2006;28:499–505.PubMed

Nidhi C, Jain RL, Neeraj M, Harsimrat K. Evaluation of the clinical efficacy of glass fiber reinforced composite resin as a space maintainer and its comparison with the conventional band and loop space. Minerva Stomatol. 2012;61:21–30.

Owais AI, Rousan ME, Badran SA, Abu Al Haija ES. Effectiveness of a lower lingual arch as a space holding device. Eur J Orthod. 2011;33:37–42.CrossRef

Qudeimat MA, Fayle SA. The longevity of space maintainers: a retrospective study. Am Acad Pediatr Dent. 1998; 20:267–72.

Qudeimat MA, Sasa IS. Clinical success and longevity of band and loop compared to crown and loop space maintainers. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2015;16:391–6.CrossRef

Rajab LD. Clinical performance and survival of space maintainers: Evaluation over a period of 5 years. J Dent Child. 2002;69:156–60.

Rebellato J, Lindauer ST, Rubenstein LK, et al. Lower arch perimeter preservation using the lingual arch. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1997;112:449–53.CrossRef

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 the deciduous molar. Dent Pract. 1965;16:111–8.

Santos VLC, Almeida MA, Mello HAS, Keith O. Direct bonded space maintainers. J Clin Pediatric Dent. 1993;17:221–5.

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.CrossRef

Simsek A, Yilmaz Y, Gurbuz T. Clinical Evaluation of Simple Fixed Space Maintainers Bonded with Flow Composite Resin. J Dent Child. 2004;71:163–8.

Stivaros N, Lowe C, Dandy N, Doherty B, Mandall. NA 2010 A randomized clinical trial to compare the Goshgarian and Nance palatal arch. Eur J Orthod 32:171–6.CrossRef

Subramaniam P, Babu GK, Sunny R. Glass fiber-reinforced composite resin as a space maintainer: a clinical study. J Indian Soc Pedodontics Prevent Dent. 2008;26:S98-S103.

Swaine TJ, Wright GZ. Direct bonding applied to space maintenance. J Dentist Child. 1976;43:401–5.

Tulunoglu O, Tezer U, Genc Y. An evaluation of survival of space maintainers: a six year follow up study. J Contem Dent Pract. 2005;6:74–84.

Tunc ES, Bayrak S, Tuloglu N, Eglimez T, Isci D. Evaluation of survival of 3 different fixed space maintainers. Pediatr Dent. 2012;34:e97-e102.

Wong-Baker FACESF. Wong-Baker FACES® Pain Rating Scale. 2015. Available at http://www.WongBakerFACES.org. (Accessed 16.06.16).

Yilmaz Y, Kocogullari ME, Belduz N. Fixed space maintainers combined with open-face stainless steel crowns. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2006;7:95–103.PubMed

Title: Methods of space maintenance for premature loss of a primary molar: a review
Authors: A. J. Ahmad
S. Parekh
P. F. Ashley
Publication date: 01-10-2018
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry / Issue 5/2018
Print ISSN: 1818-6300
Electronic ISSN: 1996-9805
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40368-018-0357-5

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Methods of space maintenance for premature loss of a primary molar: a review

Abstract

Aim

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Aim

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 5/2018

Relative effectiveness of direct and indirect pulp capping in the primary dentition

Association between children’s perceptions of the dentist and dental treatment and their oral health-related quality of life

Prevalence of molar incisor hypomineralisation in a group of Egyptian children using the short form: a cross-sectional study

Upper cervical spine and craniofacial morphology in hypohidrotic ectodermal dysplasia

Malocclusion prevention through the usage of an orthodontic pacifier compared to a conventional pacifier: a systematic review

Barriers and opportunities to oral health in Dutch-Moroccan children in the Netherlands: a narrative report