Space Maintenance in the Primary Dentition: Custom Made and Prefabricated

Kher, Meenakshi S.; Rao, Ashwin

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-11860-0_6

Contemporary Treatment Techniques in Pediatric Dentistry 2019

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-11860-0_6

|View full text |Cite

Space Maintenance in the Primary Dentition: Custom Made and Prefabricated

Meenakshi S. Kher¹,

Ashwin Rao

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

2024

Publication Types

Select...

Article1

Relationship

Self Cite0

Independent1

Authors

Journals

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some examples of these techniques include prefabricated SM kits, direct-bonded SMs, fiberreinforced composite resin SMs, and SMs produced using computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) technology with materials such as zircon, metal, polyetheretherketone, and resin. [3][4][5][6][7][8][9] In dentistry, the use of CAD/CAM started with milling methods and later began to include the use of 3D printers. Laser sintering (LS) technologies are widely applied in dental practices today.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative evaluation of the clinical success of 3D‐printed space maintainers and band–loop space maintainers

Cengiz,

Karayilmaz

2024

Int J Paed Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundExploring the integration of 3D‐printing technology in space maintainer (SM) manufacturing could offer innovative solutions and insights for enhancing SMs.AimTo compare the clinical success, retention, and periodontal effect of traditional band–loop (TBL) SMs with 3D‐printed SMs.DesignSeventy children (mean age: 6.99 ± 1.18) were divided into two groups. Laser sintering (LS) group (n = 34): Patients were scanned with an intraoral scanner. SMs were produced with LS 3D‐printing method from a titanium‐based metal powder. T group (n = 36): Impressions were taken with alginate. SMs were produced by adjusting the bands and soldering the wires on the model. The retention and effects on oral hygiene of the SMs were evaluated at the sixth month. Preference for impression technique was assessed by a five‐question survey.ResultsThirty‐eight percent of T SMs and 66% of LS SMs failed (p = .007). The mean survival time was significantly higher in the T group (p = .035). No difference was found between the initial and control full‐mouth Gingival Index (GI) and Plaque Index (PI) values of the two groups. Both groups had increased GI/PI values in abutment teeth. Patients in the LS group interpreted their impression experience more positively.ConclusionIt is important to provide oral hygiene education before applying fixed SMs and utilize more digital workflow in paediatric dentistry.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative evaluation of the clinical success of 3D‐printed space maintainers and band–loop space maintainers

Cengiz,

Karayilmaz

2024

Int J Paed Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.

Contact Info

customersupport@researchsolutions.com

10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614

Henderson, NV 89052, USA

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Blog Terms and Conditions API Terms Privacy Policy Contact Cookie Preferences Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Made with 💙 for researchers

Part of the Research Solutions Family.

Space Maintenance in the Primary Dentition: Custom Made and Prefabricated

Cited by 1 publication

References 5 publications

Comparative evaluation of the clinical success of 3D‐printed space maintainers and band–loop space maintainers

Comparative evaluation of the clinical success of 3D‐printed space maintainers and band–loop space maintainers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About