Indian journal of dental research : official publication of Indian Society for Dental Research · 2026
Chairside Clinical Time and Acceptance of Conventional and Prefabricated Band and Loop Space Maintainers in Children - A Comparative Study.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Nehta Hemlata, Rahul Morankar, Tewari Nitesh, Mathur Vijay Prakash, Bansal Kalpana, Pandey Shivam
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare chairside clinical time and acceptance of prefabricated and conventional band and loop space maintainers in children with premature loss of primary molars.
METHODS: Sixty children aged 4-8 years with premature loss of primary first or second molars requiring a space maintainer were randomized into two groups: group 1, conventional band and loop space maintainer (CBLSM), and group 2, prefabricated band and loop space maintainer (PBLSM). The clinical evaluation for patient acceptance was carried out at six months follow-up using a five-point Likert scale. Patient comfort during clinical procedure, chairside clinical time, space loss, gingival index and plaque index were also recorded and compared between the two groups.
RESULTS: After six months, both space maintainers were well accepted by the children, showing no statistically significant difference between the groups ( P > 0.05). In group 1, 40% of children, and in group 2, 46.6% of them showed mild discomfort measured using the Sound, Eye, Motor (SEM) scale, while the others were comfortable during the clinical procedure. The mean chairside clinical time required was 14.12 ± 3.90 and 19.96 ± 5.55 min for group 1 and group 2, respectively, and there was a statistically significant difference between the two groups ( P < 0.001). The plaque index, the gingival index and space loss after six months had no statistically significant differences between groups.
CONCLUSION: The CBLSM and PBLSM were comparable in terms of patient acceptance, comfort during clinical procedure and space loss after six months. However, the mean chairside clinical time required was significantly higher in PBLSM group.
METHODS: Sixty children aged 4-8 years with premature loss of primary first or second molars requiring a space maintainer were randomized into two groups: group 1, conventional band and loop space maintainer (CBLSM), and group 2, prefabricated band and loop space maintainer (PBLSM). The clinical evaluation for patient acceptance was carried out at six months follow-up using a five-point Likert scale. Patient comfort during clinical procedure, chairside clinical time, space loss, gingival index and plaque index were also recorded and compared between the two groups.
RESULTS: After six months, both space maintainers were well accepted by the children, showing no statistically significant difference between the groups ( P > 0.05). In group 1, 40% of children, and in group 2, 46.6% of them showed mild discomfort measured using the Sound, Eye, Motor (SEM) scale, while the others were comfortable during the clinical procedure. The mean chairside clinical time required was 14.12 ± 3.90 and 19.96 ± 5.55 min for group 1 and group 2, respectively, and there was a statistically significant difference between the two groups ( P < 0.001). The plaque index, the gingival index and space loss after six months had no statistically significant differences between groups.
CONCLUSION: The CBLSM and PBLSM were comparable in terms of patient acceptance, comfort during clinical procedure and space loss after six months. However, the mean chairside clinical time required was significantly higher in PBLSM group.