PATIENT- AND PARENT-CENTERED EVALUATION OF SATISFACTION WITH FIBER-REINFORCED COMPOSITE VERSUS CONVENTIONAL BAND-AND-LOOP SPACE MAINTAINERS IN PEDIATRIC DENTISTRY

Main Article Content

Dr. Dilara Jahan
Nusrat Jahan
Dr. Manna Haque Akhanda
Dr.Sumana Bhowmick
Dr. Sumaiya Binta Kamal
Dr. Mohammad Anam Uddin
Dr. Md Abul Kasem Ali Ahmed
Dr. Mir Sadik-Uz-Zaman
Dr. Md Shehabul Haque Foysal
Prof. Dr. Md. Ali Asgor Moral

Keywords

Fiber-reinforced composite, Conventional Band and Loop, space maintainer, patient satisfaction, pediatric dentistry, acceptability, comfort, aesthetics.

Abstract

Fixed space maintainers for prematurely lost primary molars aim not only to preserve arch integrity but also to ensure patient comfort and satisfaction. The most widely used Band and Loop (BL) space maintainers have several drawbacks, such as non-function, poor gingival health, limited survival, laboratory work for fabrication, and multi-sitting procedure, decalcification of the abutment tooth, loosening because of breakage or dissolution of the luting agent, a tendency to get embedded in the soft tissue, and the possibility of metal allergy. Fiber-reinforced composite loop (FRCL)space maintainers are tooth-colored and bondable, avoiding impressions and bulky metal, which may improve patient-centered outcomes.


Objective: To compare patient and parent satisfaction, acceptability, comfort, and aesthetics between FRCL space maintainers and conventional band-and-loop (BL) maintainers.


 Methods: In a split-mouth quasi-experimental study, 15 children (4–8 years) each received one FRCL maintainer and one BL maintainer on opposite sides after primary molar extraction. Satisfaction was assessed at baseline and 3, 6, 9, and 12 months’ post-placement using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = very unsatisfied to 5 = very satisfied). Questionnaires were administered to patients and parents at each visit.


Results: At 12 months, children with FRCL maintainers reported markedly higher satisfaction:> 80% were “satisfied” or “very satisfied” versus only 33% in the BL group. In contrast, the BL group had higher rates of dissatisfaction (≥33% unsatisfied/very unsatisfied). At 12 months, p = 0.03 demonstrated that Group A reported notably higher satisfaction, reflecting superior acceptance of FRCL space maintainers by both patients and parents.


Conclusion: FRCL space maintainers demonstrated superior patient and parent satisfaction over conventional band-loop appliances. These tooth-colored, less bulky devices were perceived as more comfortable and esthetic, indicating that FRCL maintainers can significantly improve the pediatric patient experience in routine dental care.

Abstract 19 | Pdf Downloads 9

References

1. McDonald RE, Avery DR. Dentistry for the Child and Adolescent. 8th ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 2000.
2. Proffit WR, Fields HW, Sarver DM. Contemporary Orthodontics. 5th ed. St. Louis: Elsevier; 2013.
3. Roberts JF, Sherriff M. The fate and survival of space maintainers. Br Dent J. 1979;146(6):170–3.
4. Ronnerman A, Thilander B. The effect of early loss of primary molars on tooth eruption and space conditions. Eur J Orthod. 1977;5(3):187–96.
5. Nayak UA, et al. Evaluation of band and loop space maintainers: Clinical study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2012;30(3):193–8.
6. Cameron AC, Widmer RP. Handbook of Pediatric Dentistry. 5th ed. St. Louis: Elsevier; 2021.
7. Nanda R, Kapila S. Current Therapy in Orthodontics. St. Louis: Mosby Elsevier; 2010.
8. Garg A, et al. Comparative evaluation of FRCL and BL space maintainers. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2014;38(4):311–5.
9. Qudeimat MA, Fayle SA. The longevity of space maintainers: A retrospective study. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 1998;2(3):133–5.
10. Dhindsa A, et al. Parental satisfaction and child comfort with different paediatric space maintainers. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2015;8(2):108–12.
11. Fathian M, Kennedy DB, Nouri MR. Laboratory-made space maintainers: A 7-year retrospective study. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2007;31(4):287–90.
12. Goenka P, et al. Fiber-reinforced composite space maintainers in children: A clinical study. Contemp Clin Dent. 2014;5(3):437–41.
13. Mittal N, et al. Evaluation of fiber-reinforced composite resin space maintainers. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2018;36(1):43–8.
14. Pithon MM, et al. Perception of dental aesthetics in children: Influence of esthetic appliances. Angle Orthod. 2014;84(5):843–8.
15. Marshman Z, et al. The use of child- and parent-reported outcomes in pediatric dentistry. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2020;30(6):636–43.
16. Kamal D, Muhammad F. Comparison of fiber-reinforced composite and conventional space maintainers. Pak Oral Dent J. 2017;37(2):315–9.
17. Spodzieja K, Olczak-Kowalczyk D. Patient cooperation and acceptability of space maintainers in paediatric dentistry: A clinical assessment. Dent Med Probl. 2022;59(4):489–96.
18. Deshpande S, et al. Comparative evaluation of bonded and banded space maintainers. J Clin Diagn Res. 2018;12(6): ZC05–ZC09.
19. Tyagi R, et al. Clinical performance of fiber-reinforced composite space maintainers: A 12-month study. J Clin Diagn Res. 2021;15(5):ZC01–ZC05.
20. Yadukrishnan R, et al. Clinical evaluation of FRCL and BL space maintainers in children. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2024;34(2):120–6.
21. Kirzioglu Z, Erturk MS. Success of reinforced fiber composite space maintainers: A clinical study. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2020;21(4):509–14.
22. Ramesh V, et al. Clinical and patient-reported comparison of fiber-reinforced composite and band-and-loop space maintainers in children. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2023;47(3):183–9.
23. Patil S, et al. Recent advances in fiber-reinforced composite space maintainers: A review. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2019;20(7):835–41.
24. Kargul B, et al. Clinical evaluation of space maintainers made with composite resin and polyethylene fiber. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2003;4(2):76–81.*
25. Al-Sarheed MA, Bawazir OA. Survival rate and parental perception of fixed space maintainers in Saudi children. Saudi Dent J. 2020;32(5):252–8.
26. Rahman MM, et al. Advances in fibre-reinforced composite technology in pediatric dentistry: An overview. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2021;14(3):345–52.
27. Shashibhushan KK, et al. Clinical comparison of fiber-reinforced and stainless steel space maintainers: A 9-month follow-up. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2022;23(1):87–93.
28. Krishnan R, et al. Evaluation of parental satisfaction and aesthetics of space maintainers in children. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2022;40(4):329–35.
29. Abd-El-Aziz M, et al. Chairside fabrication of esthetic fiber-reinforced space maintainers: Clinical performance and parental acceptance. Pediatr Dent J. 2023;33(2):112–9.
30. Jingarwar MM, et al. Clinical success and failure of different types of space maintainers: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Pediatr Dent J. 2023;33(3):156–65.
31. Lee JY, et al. Recent trends in pediatric dental materials and minimally invasive approaches. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2024;34(3):205–14.
32. Hasan A, et al. Long-term survival and cost-effectiveness of fiber-reinforced space maintainers in children: A randomized trial. BMC Oral Health. 2024;24(1):773–82.

Most read articles by the same author(s)