{"title":"3d打印空间维护器与传统和预制空间维护器的效果比较：一项随机对照试验。","authors":"Shreya Kapoor, Vivek Rana, Nikhil Srivastava, Noopur Kaushik, Navpreet Kaur","doi":"10.5005/jp-journals-10005-3118","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims and background: </strong>Space maintainers (SMs) are appliances used to preserve the arch space created by premature loss of primary teeth. Among all the SMs, conventional band and loop (CB&L) are one of the most commonly used fixed SMs with certain demerits, for example, laboratory work for fabrication and multisitting procedure. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of CB&L SMs with preformed band and loop (PB&L) and three-dimensional (3D)-printed band and loop (3DB&L) SMs in terms of survival time, gingival health, and patient or parent satisfaction.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>About 60 healthy children, aged 4-7 years with grossly mutilated primary molars requiring extraction, were included in the study. Using the simple random sample selection method (lottery method), the samples were divided into three groups (20 each): group I-CB&L SM, group II-PB&L SM, and group III-3DB&L SM. An evaluation was done at the 1st, 3rd, 6th, and 9th months for survival time, gingival health, and patient or parent satisfaction. Results were statistically analyzed using the Chi-squared test and Kruskal-Wallis test under SPSS version 20.0 software.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>About 85% of CB&L and 65% of 3DB&L, while only 30% of PB&L, survived until the end of the study. For gingival health, statistically nonsignificant differences were obtained at the 1st, 3rd, 6th, and 9th month intervals. In terms of patient or parent satisfaction, CB&L and 3DB&L SMs showed comparable results, followed by PB&L SMs.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Conventional and 3DB&L SMs proved to be clinically successful in terms of survival time, gingival health, and patient and parent satisfaction.</p><p><strong>Clinical significance: </strong>To find a better alternative for the CB&L SMs.</p><p><strong>How to cite this article: </strong>Kapoor S, Rana V, Srivastava N, <i>et al</i>. Efficacy of 3D-printed Space Maintainers in Comparison to Conventional and Prefabricated Space Maintainers: A Randomized Control Trial. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2025;18(4):406-411.</p>","PeriodicalId":36045,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry","volume":"18 4","pages":"406-411"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12131047/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy of 3D-printed Space Maintainers in Comparison to Conventional and Prefabricated Space Maintainers: A Randomized Control Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Shreya Kapoor, Vivek Rana, Nikhil Srivastava, Noopur Kaushik, Navpreet Kaur\",\"doi\":\"10.5005/jp-journals-10005-3118\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aims and background: </strong>Space maintainers (SMs) are appliances used to preserve the arch space created by premature loss of primary teeth. Among all the SMs, conventional band and loop (CB&L) are one of the most commonly used fixed SMs with certain demerits, for example, laboratory work for fabrication and multisitting procedure. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of CB&L SMs with preformed band and loop (PB&L) and three-dimensional (3D)-printed band and loop (3DB&L) SMs in terms of survival time, gingival health, and patient or parent satisfaction.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>About 60 healthy children, aged 4-7 years with grossly mutilated primary molars requiring extraction, were included in the study. Using the simple random sample selection method (lottery method), the samples were divided into three groups (20 each): group I-CB&L SM, group II-PB&L SM, and group III-3DB&L SM. An evaluation was done at the 1st, 3rd, 6th, and 9th months for survival time, gingival health, and patient or parent satisfaction. Results were statistically analyzed using the Chi-squared test and Kruskal-Wallis test under SPSS version 20.0 software.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>About 85% of CB&L and 65% of 3DB&L, while only 30% of PB&L, survived until the end of the study. For gingival health, statistically nonsignificant differences were obtained at the 1st, 3rd, 6th, and 9th month intervals. In terms of patient or parent satisfaction, CB&L and 3DB&L SMs showed comparable results, followed by PB&L SMs.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Conventional and 3DB&L SMs proved to be clinically successful in terms of survival time, gingival health, and patient and parent satisfaction.</p><p><strong>Clinical significance: </strong>To find a better alternative for the CB&L SMs.</p><p><strong>How to cite this article: </strong>Kapoor S, Rana V, Srivastava N, <i>et al</i>. Efficacy of 3D-printed Space Maintainers in Comparison to Conventional and Prefabricated Space Maintainers: A Randomized Control Trial. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2025;18(4):406-411.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36045,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry\",\"volume\":\"18 4\",\"pages\":\"406-411\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12131047/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10005-3118\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/5/19 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Dentistry\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10005-3118","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/5/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
Efficacy of 3D-printed Space Maintainers in Comparison to Conventional and Prefabricated Space Maintainers: A Randomized Control Trial.
Aims and background: Space maintainers (SMs) are appliances used to preserve the arch space created by premature loss of primary teeth. Among all the SMs, conventional band and loop (CB&L) are one of the most commonly used fixed SMs with certain demerits, for example, laboratory work for fabrication and multisitting procedure. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of CB&L SMs with preformed band and loop (PB&L) and three-dimensional (3D)-printed band and loop (3DB&L) SMs in terms of survival time, gingival health, and patient or parent satisfaction.
Materials and methods: About 60 healthy children, aged 4-7 years with grossly mutilated primary molars requiring extraction, were included in the study. Using the simple random sample selection method (lottery method), the samples were divided into three groups (20 each): group I-CB&L SM, group II-PB&L SM, and group III-3DB&L SM. An evaluation was done at the 1st, 3rd, 6th, and 9th months for survival time, gingival health, and patient or parent satisfaction. Results were statistically analyzed using the Chi-squared test and Kruskal-Wallis test under SPSS version 20.0 software.
Results: About 85% of CB&L and 65% of 3DB&L, while only 30% of PB&L, survived until the end of the study. For gingival health, statistically nonsignificant differences were obtained at the 1st, 3rd, 6th, and 9th month intervals. In terms of patient or parent satisfaction, CB&L and 3DB&L SMs showed comparable results, followed by PB&L SMs.
Conclusion: Conventional and 3DB&L SMs proved to be clinically successful in terms of survival time, gingival health, and patient and parent satisfaction.
Clinical significance: To find a better alternative for the CB&L SMs.
How to cite this article: Kapoor S, Rana V, Srivastava N, et al. Efficacy of 3D-printed Space Maintainers in Comparison to Conventional and Prefabricated Space Maintainers: A Randomized Control Trial. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2025;18(4):406-411.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
