Space maintenance controversies in pediatric dentistry—a scoping review

Space maintainers (SMs) serve as a key component in interceptive orthodontics, helping to avoid the need for more invasive treatments later on. This scoping review aims to assess the necessity and the controversy of using space maintainers, by comparing and analysing the dental and occlusion outcomes of children who received SMs with those who did not receive any treatment following the early loss of primary teeth. Databases such as PubMed, Science Direct, Wiley and ProQuest were examined using the PCC framework (Population, Concept, Context), following specific eligibility criteria. Titles and abstracts were screened, and full-text articles were critically assessed followed by the construction of the data charting table. A total of 901 were screened, and 17 relevant articles were included. The findings suggested that SMs could be effective in maintaining arch integrity and preventing future malocclusions. However, the literature revealed several key gaps and controversies in the use of SMs, particularly in terms of long-term effectiveness, patient compliance, cost and the occurrence of potential complications. The findings of this review seem to be helpful for clinicians in deciding when the SM is necessary versus when the natural closure is expected; also in optimising patient outcomes and reducing unnecessary treatments by incorporating these findings into their practice making more educated individualized treatment decisions, and using a risk-based strategy; as well as in improving parental counselling and patient education, which help increase compliance, especially when it comes to removable appliances. However, the disparities in study designs, inadequate long-term data and unclear therapeutic guidelines might complicate evidence-based decision-making. To address these gaps, the focus on longitudinal, standardized clinical trials that assess the true efficacy of SMs over time, studies that compare the effectiveness of fixed versus removable SMs, and patient compliance variables are recommended for future research.

Band and loop; Controversy; Orthodontics; Preventive dentistry; Removable appliances; Space regainers; Space maintainers

[1] Agarwal T, Agarwal N. A modified removable space maintainer for compromised dentition of children: a case series. International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2020; 13: 722–724.

[2] Sathyaprasad S, Krishnareddy MG, Vinod V, Das N, Ramesh R, Ilyas I. Comparative evaluation of fixed functional cantilever space maintainer and fixed nonfunctional space maintainer: a randomized controlled trial. International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2022; 15: 750–760.

[3] Warkhandkar A, Habib L. Effects of premature primary tooth loss on midline deviation and asymmetric molar relationship in the context of orthodontic treatment. Cureus. 2023; 15: e42442.

[4] 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. International Journal of Dentistry. 2021; 2021: 3967164.

[5] Tahririan D, Safaripour M, Eshghi A, Bonyadian AH. Comparison of the longevity of prefabricated and conventional bands and loops in children’s primary teeth. Dental Research Journal. 2019; 16: 428–434.

[6] Singh PH, Naorem H, Chaoba T. Modern concepts of space maintainers and space regainers: a review article. European Journal of Pharmaceutical and Medical Research. 2020; 7: 176–178.

[7] Khalaf K, Mustafa A, Wazzan M, Omar M, Estaitia M, El-Kishawi M. Clinical effectiveness of space maintainers and space regainers in the mixed dentition: a systematic review. The Saudi Dental Journal. 2022; 34: 75–86.

[8] Nicole Byrne, DMD PLLC. Care and instructions. 2020. Available at: https://www.byrnekidsdental.com/care-and-instructions (Accessed: 15 August 2024).

[9] Samal S. Space maintainer: a review. Indian Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology. 2020; 14: 9222–9225.

[10] Choi Y, Jung Y, Myaeng SH. Identifying controversial issues and their sub-topics in news articles. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Berlin, Germany. 2010.

[11] Rada RE. Controversial issues in treating the dental patient with autism. The Journal of the American Dental Association. 2010; 141: 947–953.

[12] Bergenholtz G, Spångberg LS. Controversies in endodontics. Critical Reviews in Oral Biology and Medicine. 2004; 15: 99–114.

[13] Laing E, Ashley P, Naini FB, Gill DS. Space maintenance. International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry. 2009; 19: 155–162.

[14] Joanna Briggs Institute. The scoping review framework. Available at: https://jbi-global-wiki.refined.site/space/MANUAL/355862599/10.1.3+The+scoping+review+framework (Accessed: 16 November 2024).

[15] Weill Cornell Medical College. Scoping reviews: systematic reviews. Available at: https://med.cornell.libguides.com/systematicreviews/scopingreviews (Accessed: 15 October 2024).

[16] Setia V, Kumar Pandit I, Srivastava N, Gugnani N, Gupta M. Banded vs. bonded space maintainers: finding better way out. International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2014; 7: 97–104.

[17] Khalaf K, Mustafa A, Wazzan M, Omar M, Estaitia M, El-Kishawi M. Clinical effectiveness of space maintainers and space regainers in the mixed dentition: a systematic review. Saudi Dental Journal. 2022; 34: 75–86.

[18] 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. International Journal of Dentistry. 2021; 2021: 3967164.

[19] Ramakrishnan M, Dhanalakshmi R, Subramanian EMG. Survival rate of different fixed posterior space maintainers used in pediatric dentistry: a systematic review. Saudi Dental Journal. 2019; 31: 165–172.

[20] S Deshpande S, D Bendgude V, V Kokkali V. Survival of bonded space maintainers: a systematic review. International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2018; 11: 440–445.

[21] Cengiz A, Karayilmaz H. Comparative evaluation of the clinical success of 3D-printed space maintainers and band-loop space maintainers. International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry. 2024; 34: 584–592.

[22] Kamki H, Kalaskar R, Balasubramanian S, Badhe H, Kalaskar A. Clinical effectiveness of fibre-reinforced composite space maintainer and band and loop space maintainer in a pediatric patient: a systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2021; 14: S82–S93.

[23] Lin YJ, Lin YT. Long-term space changes after premature loss of a primary maxillary first molar. Journal of Dental Sciences. 2017; 12: 44–48.

[24] Bindayel NA. Clinical evaluation of short-term space variation following premature loss of primary second molar at the early permanent dentition stage. Saudi Dental Journal. 2019; 31: 311–315.

[25] Bruni A, Ferrillo M, Gallo V, Parrini S, Garino F, Castroflorio T, et al. Efficacy of clear aligners vs rapid palatal expanders on palatal volume and surface area in mixed dentition patients: a randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2024; 166: 203–214.

[26] Vinothini V, Sanguida A, Selvabalaji A, Prathima GS, Kavitha M. Functional band and loop space maintainers in children. Case Reports in Dentistry. 2019; 2019: 4312049.

[27] Chandra A, Kabra SP, Yeluri R, Thosar NR, Khubchandani M, Pankey N, et al. Biogenic tooth-integrated fixed functional space maintainer for pediatric use: a novel approach. Cureus. 2024; 16: e63621.

[28] Sucharew H, Macaluso M. Methods for research evidence synthesis: the scoping review approach. Journal of Hospital Medicine. 2019; 14: 416–418.

[29] Pham MT, Rajić A, Greig JD, Sargeant JM, Papadopoulos A, McEwen SA. A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Research Synthesis Methods. 2014; 5: 371–385.

[30]Khanna S, Rao D, Panwar S, Pawar BA, Ameen S. 3D printed band and loop space maintainer: a digital game changer in preventive orthodontics. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2021; 45: 147–151.

[31]Hadie SNH. ABC of a scoping review: a simplified JBI scoping review guideline. Education in Medicine Journal. 2024; 16: 185–197.

[32]Tokuc M, Yilmaz H. Comparison of fit accuracy between conventional and CAD/CAM-fabricated band-loop space maintainers. International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry. 2022; 32: 764–771.

[33]Tyagi M, Rana V, Srivastava N, Kaushik N, Moirangthem E, Gaur V. Comparison of the conventional band and loop space maintainers with modified space maintainers: a split-mouth randomized clinical trial. International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2021; 14: S63–S68.

[34]Zhao J, Jin H, Li X, Qin X. Dental arch spatial changes after premature loss of first primary molars: a systematic review and meta-analysis of split-mouth studies. BMC Oral Health. 2023; 23: 430.

[35] Casaña-Ruiz M, Aura-Tormos JI, Marques-Martinez L, Garcia-Miralles E, Perez-Bermejo M. Effectiveness of space maintainers in pediatric patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dentistry Journal. 2025; 13: 32.

[36] Martin GP, Jenkins DA, Bull L, Sisk R, Lin L, Hulme W, et al.; Predictive Healthcare Analytics Group. Toward a framework for the design, implementation, and reporting of methodology scoping reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2020; 127: 191–197.

[37] Khalil H, Peters M, Godfrey CM, McInerney P, Soares CB, Parker D. An evidence-based approach to scoping reviews. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing. 2021; 18: 33–39.