Space changes after premature loss of deciduous molars among Brazilian children.

INTRODUCTION: The use of space maintainers after the premature loss of deciduous molars is routine in pediatric dentistry. However, there is a need for evidence offering a better scientific basis for prescribing these appliances. In this study, we aimed to assess dimensional changes in the dental arches after the premature loss of deciduous molars. METHODS: A sample of 55 children between 6 and 9 years of age with unilateral loss of either first or second molars was followed for 10 months by clinical examination, cast analysis, and radiographic analysis. The space in the extraction site, arch length, and hemi-perimeter of the extraction and control sides were measured. Intraexaminer agreement was high (0.990). The data were analyzed by using the F test (analysis of variance), Bonferroni test, least significant difference, and Student t test. RESULTS: Only the group of children with premature loss of the mandibular second deciduous molars exhibited significant dimensional alterations during the follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The findings emphasize a need for the judicious indication for space maintainers. The major effect on the dental arches occurred in the first 3 months after the extraction of the deciduous molars, indicating that these appliances should be fitted during this period.

Twelve-month space changes after premature loss of a primary maxillary first molar.

BACKGROUND: Many early investigations concerning space changes following premature extraction of primary molars had a cross-sectional design, a small sample size, and a somewhat crude methodology, which may have led to misunderstandings. AIM: The aim of this study was to use established longitudinal data to investigate ongoing (12-month) dental-arch space problems arising as a result of premature loss of a primary maxillary first molar. DESIGN: Thirteen children (mean ± SD age at time of tooth extraction, 6.0 ± 0.74 years) with unilateral premature loss of a primary maxillary first molar were selected for this study. Maxillary dental study casts were obtained from participants 2 or 3 days after the tooth was removed, as well as at a follow-up appointment 12 months later. Six reference lines were measured on the study cast: D + E space, arch width, arch length, intercanine width, intercanine length, and arch perimeter. For each participant, the D + E space of the contralateral intact primary molar served as a control. A paired t-test was used to compare the cast measurements between initial examination and 12-month follow-up. A t-test was used to compare D + E space changes with those of the control group. RESULTS: The D + E space of the extraction side after 12 months was significantly smaller than that of the control side (P < 0.05) and the initial D + E space (P < 0.05). A significantly greater arch perimeter, intercanine width, and intercanine length were found after 12 months compared with the initial parameters. No significant differences were found, however, in arch width or arch length between the initial examination and the 12-month follow-up examination (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The 12-month space changes in the maxillary dental arch after premature loss of a primary maxillary first molar consist mainly of distal drift of the primary canine toward the extraction site. Mesial movement of permanent molars or tilting of the primary molars did not occur. An increased arch dimension was found especially in the anterior segment (intercanine width and length). There is no need for the use of space maintainers from the results in this study in cases of premature loss of a primary first molar.

Laboratory-made space maintainers: a 7-year retrospective study from private pediatric dental practice.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to report survival times and problems encountered with laboratory made space maintainers placed over 7 years by one pediatric dentist. METHODS: Charts were reviewed for 235 patients with fixed space maintainers placed between January 1, 1997, and December 31, 2003, and followed to December 31, 2005. Problems encountered and appliance lifetimes were recorded and assessed. Failures were recorded as: (1) cement loss; (2) solder breakage; (3) split bands; (4) eruption interference; (5) bent wire; (6) complete loss; or (7) not specified. Appliance outcomes, transferred patients, and those lost to follow-up were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 323 appliances were followed, with: (a) 93 (29%) successes; (b) 110 (34%) still in service; and (c) 104 (32%) known failures. Of the latter, most (62%) were from cement loss (60%) and 13 (12%) were totally lost. No statistically significant differences were noted between types of appliances, gender, and types of failure, except for the fact that bands and loops exhibited more cement loss (P=.045). Mean pooled survival times were between 26 and 27 months.. Of the 104 failures: (a) 34 (33%) were no longer needed (being considered clinically successful); (b) 57 (55%) were recemented; and (c) 13 (12%) were remade. Sixteen appliances were lost to follow-up or transferred. CONCLUSION: A total of 63% of all space maintainers lasted their anticipated lifetimes or were still in use.

Free-end space maintainers: design, utilization and advantages.

Primary molars are a determining factor in the development of occlusion. Given their importance, when restorative treatment is notfeasible and a primary molar must be extracted, the practitioner should keep in mind the risk of losing space, and the consequent malocclusion. Preservation of the space can eliminate or reduce the needforprolonged orthodontic treatment. For that reason, there are various kinds of space maintainers and the pediatric dentist must decide which one to utilize, on the basis of general and local factors related to the child In the selection of a treatment option for space maintenance, the greatest complications occur when the first permanent molar has not yet erupted A large variety of appliances have been devised to deal with this situation. This article proposes the use of a removable space maintainer that is open on one end and can be employed to guide the first permanent molar, maintaining the integrity of the mucous membrane and serving as a prosthetic appliance, preventing the complications and contraindications often caused by sub-gingival maintainers.

Preventive and interceptive orthodontic treatment needs of an inner-city group of 6- and 9-year-old Canadian children.

OBJECTIVE: Early recognition of developing malocclusions and the potential for uncomplicated orthodontic treatment procedures can minimize or eliminate future costly treatment. This study was designed to assess the potential for this approach in children living in a limited-income environment. A modified index for preventive and interceptive orthodontic needs (IPION) was used to determine the need for such treatment in schoolchildren aged 6 and 9 years. METHODS: Two calibrated examiners examined each child independently and assessed several components of his or her occlusion, including molar relationship, crossbite, open bite, overbite and overjet. Dental variables such as presence of caries and early loss of teeth were also noted. Informed consent was obtained and all children present at school on the day of the field study were included. A total of 395 children were divided into 2 groups, aged 6 and 9 years. RESULTS: A high prevalence of caries in the deciduous dentition (30.4% for 6 year olds; 20.6% for 9 year olds) and early loss of primary teeth (11.9% for 6 year olds; 29.4% for 9 year olds) was observed. A large percentage of children had crossbite in the anterior or posterior segments, or both. Open bites were also a common finding. Future orthodontic problems were identified in 28% of this population by using the modified IPION. No statistically significant differences (p > 0.05) were found between sexes or age groups using the chi2 test. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the developing malocclusions identified in this study would be amenable to interceptive orthodontics, consisting of space maintenance, crossbite correction and arch expansion.