“Comparative evaluation of efficacy and efficiency of 3D Printed Space Maintainers with that of Conventional Band n Loop and Fibre-Reinforced (Ribbond) Space Maintainers- An in vivo study.”
maintaining space layer by layer
Abstract
Background: Traditional space maintainers, like band and loop, face issues such as short lifespan and gum health concerns. Fibre-reinforced space maintainers offer benefits like improved aesthetics and comfort but are time consuming and have less longevity. 3D printing technology offers potential for more customized, effective space maintainers with biodegradable materials.
Aim- To compare and evaluate the efficacy and efficiency of 3D Printed space maintainers with that of conventional band n loop space maintainers and fibre-reinforced (ribbond) space maintainers.
Materials and Methodology: 30 children, according to pre-determined inclusion and exclusion criteria, who required space maintainers were included in the study and were equally divided into 3 groups. Group-1- conventional band n loop space maintainers, group-2- Fibre-reinforced (ribbond) space maintainers, group-3- 3D Printed space maintainers. The longevity of the appliance was evaluated by determining the retention, breakage and dislodgement of the appliance. Plaque accumulation was determined by using Silness and Loe index. Chairside time was evaluated using a digital stopwatch.
Results: Based on the longevity, the highest retention 70% and least breakage 0% with only 30% dislodgement cases, was reported in the 3D printed space maintainers (Group 3). The least plaque accumulation was reported in the 3D printed space maintainers. The least mean chair side time was seen in the 3D printed space maintainers 7.50±2.17.
Conclusion: 3D Printed Space Maintainers were found to be child-friendly and thus, more acceptable.
References
2.Peterson D, Davies J. Classification of Space Maintainers. [10 Nov. 2019]. http://depts.washington.edu/peddent/AtlasDemo/space009.html.
3. Luca MM, Popa M, Watz CG, Pinzaru I, Draghici GA, Mihali CV, Dehelean CA, Buzatu R, Szuhanek C. Space maintainers used in pediatric dentistry: An insight of their biosecurity profile by applying in vitro methods. Materials. 2021 Jan;14(20):6215.
4.Laing E, Ashley P, Naini FB, Gill DS. Space maintenance. International journal of paediatric dentistry. 2009 May;19(3):155-62.
5. Zarean P, Zarean P, Sendi P, Neuhaus KW. Advances in the Manufacturing Process of Space Maintainers in Pediatric Dentistry: A Systematic Review from Traditional Methods to 3D-Printing. Applied Sciences. 2023 Jan;13(12):1-15.
6.Khalaf K, Mustafa A, Wazzan M, Omar M, Estaitia M, El-Kishawi M. Clinical effectiveness of space maintainers and space regainers in the mixed dentition: A systematic review. The Saudi Dental Journal. 2022 Feb 1;34(2):75-86.
7.Thakur B, Bhardwaj A, Luke AM, Wahjuningrum DA. Effectiveness of traditional band and loop space maintainer vs 3D-printed space maintainer following the loss of primary teeth: a randomized clinical trial. Scientific Reports. 2024 Jun 18;14(1):14081.
8.Qudeimat MA, Sasa IS. Clinical success and longevity of band and loop compared to crown and loop space maintainers. European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry. 2015 Oct;16:391-6.
9.Tyagi M, Rana V, Srivastava N, Kaushik N, Moirangthem E, Gaur V. Comparison of the conventional band and loop space maintainers with modified space maintainers: a split-mouth randomized clinical trial. International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2021;14(Suppl 1):S63.
10. EL-Awady AA, Badreldin HM. Children's Satisfaction and Survival Rate of Fiber-reinforced Space Maintainer Versus Band and Loop Space Maintainer in Children with Premature Loss of Maxillary Primary First Molar: A Randomized Clinical Trial. International journal of health sciences. 2022;6(S10):212-222.
11.Padmanabhan V, Kishore S, Suvetha S. Fiber reinforced composite space maintainers versus band and loop space maintainers—A systematic review. J. Evol. Med. Dent. Sci. 2021 Aug 2;10:2505-2510.
12.Chandra HS, Krishnamoorthy SH, Johnson JS, Prabhu S. ILL effects of Conventional band and loop space maintainers: Time to revolutionise. International Dental & Medical Journal of Advanced Research. 2018;4(1):1-3.
13.Dawood A, Marti BM, Sauret-Jackson V, Darwood A. 3D printing in dentistry. British dental journal. 2015 Dec 11;219(11):521-529.
14.Turkyilmaz I, Wilkins GN. 3D printing in dentistry–Exploring the new horizons. Journal of Dental Sciences. 2021 Jul 1;16(3):1037-1038.
15.Do AV, Khorsand B, Geary SM, Salem AK. 3D printing of scaffolds for tissue regeneration applications. Advanced healthcare materials. 2015 Aug;4(12):1742-62.
16.Pawar BA. Maintenance of space by innovative three-dimensional-printed band and loop space maintainer. Journal of Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry. 2019 Apr 1;37(2):205-208.
17.Khanna S, Rao D, Panwar S, Pawar BA, Ameen S. 3D printed band and loop space maintainer: A digital game changer in preventive orthodontics. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2021 Jul 1;45(3):147-151.
18.Löe H, Silness J. Periodontal disease in pregnancy I. Prevalence and severity. Acta odontologica scandinavica. 1963 Jan 1;21(6):533-51.
19.Rana V, Srivastava N, Kaushik N, Kapoor S. 3D Space Management In Mixed Dentition. Journal of Positive School Psychology. 2022 Oct 16;6(9):4207-4210.
20.Nidhi C, Jain RL, Neeraj M, Harsimrat K, Samriti B, Anuj C. 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 maintainer. An in vivo study. Minerva Stomatologica. 2012 Jan 1;61(1-2):21-30.
21.Pahuja N. Simplify your practice with 3D printed space maintainer. University Journal of Dental Sciences. 2023 Mar 21;9(2):82-85.
22.Afritha NA, Moses J. 3-D Printed space maintainers-A review. International Journal of Pedodontic Rehabilitation. 2022 Nov 21;7(2):19-24.
