Yer tutucu Olarak Kullanılan Lingual Ark Apareyinin Klinik Başarısının Değerlendirilmesi

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı bir grup çocuk hastadayertutucu olarak kullanılan lingual ark apareyinin klinikbaşarısının değerlendirilmesidir.Birey ve Yöntem: Çalışmaya lingual ark yertutucuuygulanan 55 çocuk hasta (ort 8,7±0,6 yaş) dahil edildi.Lingaul ark apareylerin ortalama sağ kalım sürelerive başarısızlık nedenleri kaydedildi. Tanımlayıcı istatistiklerhesaplandı. Lingual ark apareylerin ortalama sağkalım süreleri Kaplan-Meier Analizi ile belirlendi. Yaş,cinsiyet gibi faktörlerin ortalama yaşam süresine etkisiCox regresyon analizi ile hesaplandı.Bulgular: Çalışmada ortalama takip süresi 15,4±6,2 aydır. En önemli başarısızlık nedeni bant desimantasyonuolarak bulunmuştur. Lingual ark yer tutucununortalama sağ kalım süresi 6 aydır. Cox regresyon analizisonuçlarına göre; yaş ve cinsiyet değişkenlerinin lingualark yer tutucuların yaşam sürelerine etkisinin önemli olmadığıbelirlenmiştir (p>0.05)Sonuç: Lingual ark yertutucuların desimatasyon ileilgili problemlerinin önüne geçebilmek için düzenli kontrollerinyanı sıra, yer tutucuların yapıştırma işlemlerinedikkat edilmeli, cam iyonomer esaslı yapıştıcı kullanıldığındasıkı nem kontrolü önlemleri alınmalıdır.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

Çocuk, Lingual Ark Apareyi, Yertutucu

Evaluation of Clinical Success of Lingual Arch Applience used as Space Maintainer

Aim: It was aimed to evaluate the clinical success of lingual arc appliance as a space maintainer in a group of children.Subjects and Methods: : A total of 55 pediatric dental patients (8.7±0.6 years) who worn lingual arch appliance were included. Mean survival time of the Lingual archs and the failure reasons was recorded. Descriptive statistics were calculated. Cumulative survival rates of lingual arch space maintainer were estimated viaKaplan-Meier methods. The contribution of covariables age, sex to the survival function was further analyzed by means of the Cox regression model.Results: Mean follow-up period was 15.4 ± 6.2 months. The most common cause of failure was decementation and the mean survival time of lingualarch space maintainers was 6 months. According to theCox regression analysis no age and sex variables to bestatistically significant to predict the survival of spacemaintainers (p>0.05).Conclusion: Regular follow-ups should be scheduledfor patients who worn lingual arch space maintainer.Also strict moist control protocols must be employedbefore space maintainer cementation to overwhelm toproblems related to decementation of lingual arch spacemaintainer if glass ionomer cement was chosen as abonding agent

Keywords:

Child;, Lingual Arch Appliance, Space Maintainer,

PDF

___

Kaynaklar
Brothwell DJ. Guidelines on the use of space maintainers following premature loss of primary teeth. J Can Dent Assoc. 1997;63:753- 66.
Ngan P, Alkire RC, Fields H Jr. Management of space problems in the primary and mixed dentitions. J Am Dent Assoc. 1999;130:1330-9. doi: 10.14219/jada.archive.1999.0403.
Ghafari J. Early treatment of dental arch problems. I. Space maintenance, space gaining. Quintessence Int. 1986;17:423-32.
Tulunoglu O, Ulusu T, Genç Y. An evaluation of survival of space maintainers: a six-year follow-up study. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2005;15;6:74-84.
Richardson ME. The relationship between the relative amount of space present in the deciduous dental arch and the rate and degree of space closure subsequent to the extraction of a deciduous molar. Dent Pract Dent Rec. 1965;16:111-8.
Ghafari J. Early treatment of dental arch problems. I. Space maintenance, space gaining. Quintessence Int. 1986;17:423-32.
Kamki H, Kalaskar R, Balasubramanian S, Badhe H, Kalaskar A. Clinical effectiveness of fiber-reinforced composite space maintainer and band and loop space maintainer in a pediatric patient: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2021;14(Suppl 1):S82-S93. doi: 10.5005/jpjournals- 10005-2044.
Mosharrafian S, Baghalian A, Hamrah MH, Kargar M. Clinical evaluation for space maintainer after unilateral loss of primary first molar in the early mixed dentition stage. Int J Dent. 2021;7:3967164. doi:10.1155/2021/3967164.
Gianelly AA. Leeway space and the resolution of crowding in the mixed dentition. Semin Orthod. 1995;1:188-94. doi: 10.1016/ s1073-8746(95)80022-0.
Qudeimat MA, Fayle SA. The longevity of space maintainers: a retrospective study. Pediatr Dent. 1998;20:267-72.
Qudeimat MA, Fayle SA. The use of space maintainers at a UK Paediatric Dentistry department. ASDC J Dent Child. 1999;66:383- 6.
Rajab LD. Clinical performance and survival of space maintainers: Evaluation over a period of 5 Years. J Dent Child. 2002;69:156–60.
Rebellato J, Lindauer SJ, Rubenstein LK, Isaacson RJ, Davidovitch M, Vroom K. Lower arch perimeter preservation using the lingual arch. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1997;112:449-56. doi: 10.1016/s0889- 5406(97)70054-4.
Owais AI, Rousan ME, Badran SA, Abu Alhaija ES. Effectiveness of a lower lingual arch as a space holding device. Eur J Orthod. 2011;33:37-42. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjq022.
Law CS. Management of premature primary tooth loss in the child patient. J Calif Dent Assoc 2013;41:612-8.
Fathian M, Kennedy DB, Nouri MR. Laboratory-made space maintainers: a 7-year retrospective study from private pediatric dental practice. Pediatr Dent. 2007;29:500-6.
Moore TR, Kennedy DB. Bilateral space maintainers: a 7-year retrospective study from private practice. Pediatr Dent. 2006;28:499-505