Parental acceptance and patient satisfaction of using functional lingual arch space maintainer compared to conventional lingual arch space maintainer- A Questionnaire Survey

Main Article Content

Janvi M Gandhi
Deepa Gurunathan


Functional lingual arch, space maintainer, space loss, premature loss, functional space maintainer, E space


Aim: To evaluate the parental acceptance and patient satisfaction of using different lingual arch space maintainers in children.
Materials & Methods: 20 patients selected between the age group 7-9 for whom lingual arch space maintainers were indicated. A questionnaire was formulated pertaining to the function, aesthetics and comfort of the child with the new appliance. Responses were collected from parents of 20 participants through an electronic questionnaire which consisted of 10 questions, who were given a lingual arch space maintainer.
Results: The responses from the questionnaire survey favoured the use of functional lingual arch when compared to the conventional lingual arch as 80% of the conventional lingual arch participants had a significantly increased chewing time (p value 0.001) and 80% had a change in diet; preferred soft foods and liquids. (p value 0.001)
Conclusion: From the present study we can conclude that, there can be a shift in the gold standard from conventional lingual arch design to the functional lingual arch space maintainer as it has improved chewing efficiency compared to the conventional lingual arch.

Abstract 209 | PDF Downloads 172


1. McDonald and Avery Dentistry for the Child and Adolescent [Internet]. 2011. Available from:
2. Arikan V, Kizilci E, Ozalp N, Ozcelik B. Effects of Fixed and Removable Space Maintainers on Plaque Accumulation, Periodontal Health, Candidal and Enterococcus Faecalis Carriage. Med Princ Pract. 2015 Jun 4;24(4):311–7.
3. Chalakkal P, Ferreira AN, Da Costa GC. Functional Lingual Arch with Hinge-type Lockable Dentulous Component [Internet]. Vol. 10, International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2017. p. 302–8. Available from:
4. Silness J, Loe H. Periodontal Disease In Pregnancy. Ii. Correlation Between Oral Hygiene And Periodontal Condtion. Acta Odontol Scand. 1964 Feb;22:121–35. 5. Ngan PW, Wei SH, Yen PK. Orthodontic treatment of the primary dentition. J Am Dent Assoc. 1988 Mar;116(3):336–40.
6. Owen DG. The incidence and nature of space closure following the premature extraction of deciduous teeth: a literature study. Am J Orthod. 1971 Jan;59(1):37–49.
7. Habib A, Ghoneima A, Diar-Bakirly S. Management of mandibular incisors crowding by using passive lower lingual holding arch: a case series and literature review. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2023 Mar;47(2):101–7.
8. Chen CY, Hsu KLC, Marghalani AA, Dhar V, Coll JA. Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Passive Lower Lingual Arch for Resolving Mandibular Incisor Crowding and Effects on Arch Dimension. Pediatr Dent. 2019 Jan 15;41(1):9–22.
9. Souto R, Colombo APV. Prevalence of Enterococcus faecalis in subgingival biofilm and saliva of subjects with chronic periodontal infection. Arch Oral Biol. 2008 Feb;53(2):155–60.
10. Boyd RL, Baumrind S. Periodontal considerations in the use of bonds or bands on molars in adolescents and adults. Angle Orthod. 1992 Summer;62(2):117–26.
11. Govindaraju L., Subramanian E.M.G., Jeevanandan G. Comparing the Influence of Conventional and Rotary Instrumentation Techniques on the Behavior of the Children: A Randomized Clinical Trial. International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2021;14(S2): S179-S185.
12. Govindaraju L., Jeevanandan G., Subramanian E. ABO blood grouping: A potential risk factor for early childhood caries - A cross-sectional study. Indian Journal of Dental Research. 2018;29(3): 313-316.
13. Priyadarshini P., Jeevanandan G., Govindaraju L., Subramanian E.M.G. Clinical evaluation of instrumentation time and quality of obturation using paediatric hand and rotary file systems with conventional hand K-files for pulpectomy in primary mandibular molars: a double-blinded randomized controlled trial. European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry. 2020;21(6) : 693-701.
14. Jeevanandan G., Govindaraju L. Clinical comparison of Kedo-S paediatric rotary files vs manual instrumentation for root canal preparation in primary molars: a double blinded randomised clinical trial. European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry. 2018;19 (4) : 273-278.
15. Sruthi S., Jeevanandan G., Govindaraju L., Subramanian E. Assessing quality of obturation and instrumentation time using Kedo-SG blue, Kedo-SH, and reciprocating hand K-files in primary mandibular molars: A double-blinded randomized controlled trial. Dental Research Journal.2021;18: 76.
16. Jeevanandan G., Govindaraju L., Subramanian E.M.G., Priyadarshini P. Comparative evaluation of quality of obturation and its effect on postoperative pain between pediatric hand and rotary files: A double-blinded randomized controlled trial. International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry.2021;14 (1) :88-96.
17. Asif A., Jeevanandan G., Govindaraju L., Vignesh R., Subramanian E.M.G. Comparative evaluation of extrusion of apical debris in primary anterior teeth using two different rotary systems and hand files: An in Vitro study. Contemporary Clinical Dentistry. 2019;10 (3): 512-516.
18. Juliet S., Jeevanandan G., Govindaraju L., Ravindran V., Subramanian E. Comparison between Three Rotary Files on Quality of Obturation and Instrumentation Time in Primary Teeth-A Double Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of Orofacial Sciences. 2020;12(1) :30-34.

Most read articles by the same author(s)