ArticleInternational journal of clinical pediatric dentistry2025
Efficacy of 3D-printed Space Maintainers in Comparison to Conventional and Prefabricated Space Maintainers: A Randomized Control Trial.
Article in International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims and background: Space maintainers (SMs) are appliances used to preserve the arch space created by premature loss of primary teeth. Among all the SMs, conventional band and loop (CB&L) are one of the most commonly used fixed SMs with certain demerits, for example, laboratory work for fabrication and multisitting procedure. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of CB&L SMs with preformed band and loop (PB&L) and three-dimensional (3D)-printed band and loop (3DB&L) SMs in terms of survival time, gingival health, and patient or parent satisfaction. Materials and methods: About 60 healthy children, aged 4-7 years with grossly mutilated primary molars requiring extraction, were included in the study. Using the simple random sample selection method (lottery method), the samples were divided into three groups (20 each): group I-CB&L SM, group II-PB&L SM, and group III-3DB&L SM. An evaluation was done at the 1st, 3rd, 6th, and 9th months for survival time, gingival health, and patient or parent satisfaction. Results were statistically analyzed using the Chi-squared test and Kruskal-Wallis test under SPSS version 20.0 software. Results: About 85% of CB&L and 65% of 3DB&L, while only 30% of PB&L, survived until the end of the study. For gingival health, statistically nonsignificant differences were obtained at the 1st, 3rd, 6th, and 9th month intervals. In terms of patient or parent satisfaction, CB&L and 3DB&L SMs showed comparable results, followed by PB&L SMs. Conclusion: Conventional and 3DB&L SMs proved to be clinically successful in terms of survival time, gingival health, and patient and parent satisfaction. Clinical significance: To find a better alternative for the CB&L SMs. How to cite this article: Kapoor S, Rana V, Srivastava N,
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.