Background and Introduction

The primary dentition has an important role in guiding the eruption of the permanent teeth.
Premature loss of primary teeth can lead to undesirable tooth movements resulting in space
loss in the permanent dentition. This can have detrimental effects on the developing
occlusion including crowding, impaction or ectopic eruption, over-eruption of unopposed
teeth and centre line discrepancies.1

It is important to try and maintain the primary dentition in the arch until exfoliation where
possible,2 however where early loss in unavoidable this should be managed to minimise the
unwanted effects on the developing occlusion.3-6 Space maintainers can be used for this
purpose. There is limited evidence in the literature for or against the use of space
maintainers, 1,7-8 a recent rapid response report carried out by the Canadian Agency for
Drugs and Technologies found the evidence to be limited due to the poor quality and poor
reporting of studies.9 Nevertheless, despite the lack of high quality evidence,6 common
sense would indicate that in some clinical situations they are likely to be of benefit. The
Royal College of Surgeons guidance on the extraction of primary teeth state that space
maintainers would be most valuable in two situations: i) Loss of a primary molar where
crowding is severe and where extraction of one premolar maybe insufficient to relieve
resultant crowding. ii) Loss of a second primary molar except in spaced arches. 10 Therefore
we will not consider the quality of the evidence further, instead the aim of this paper is to
provide clear guidance as to when space maintenance should be considered and how
patients should be assessed.

Prior to considering space maintenance, a thorough examination must be carried out to

determine the patient’s oral health status including caries risk and oral hygiene. Space
maintainers accumulate plaque therefore patients must be able to maintain good oral
hygiene. This will be especially relevant if the reason for early loss of the primary tooth is
because of caries and the child is therefore at high caries risk. Some patients who have
early loss of deciduous teeth simply may not be good candidates for space maintainers if
they cannot maintain good oral health. In order to be able to consider space maintenance,
patients must be dentally fit, have caries stabilised and motivated to maintain adequate oral
hygiene and follow non-cariogenic diet advice. Patients must also be reliable and regular
attenders and be engaged with the treatment. This is because if appliances remain in situ
beyond their period of use or fail and are not repaired, they can become embedded in the
soft tissues; impede the eruption of permanent teeth; or cause other harmful effects.
Finally, any child considered for space maintenance must be able to cooperate with its
placement.

Materials and methods

Assessing a patient for space maintenance

Assuming the patient meets the criteria described above then a more detailed assessment
can be carried out to determine if a space maintainer will be of benefit. A number of factors
need to be taken into consideration when deciding the most appropriate space
maintenance treatment option:

 Tooth/teeth lost in the arch;

 Time period since tooth loss;
 Presence and continued development of permanent successor;
 Current malocclusion;
 Individual arch space analysis;
 Amount of alveolar bone overlying permanent successor;

Early loss of primary molars in particular can result in reduction in arch length and thereby
increase the severity of crowding/malocclusion and so, in the right patient, every effort
should be taken to maintain the natural Leeway space. Unilateral loss of a primary canine
or first molar can lead to a marked centreline discrepancy and mesial migration of the
buccal segments and so is another important clinical scenario to maintain the space
carefully or balance any extractions accordingly.10 Primary upper incisors do not generally
need to be space maintained.

Contraindications of using space maintainers include lack of space for the successor tooth as
future orthodontic treatment may be indicated.

Whilst there are ways to manage the difficulties associated with space loss through careful
Orthodontic treatment planning and mechanics - for many patients avoiding extractions by
preventing space loss is important. Space maintenance can be especially important in
managing and guiding developing dentitions in patients where lengthy Orthodontic
treatment may not ever be appropriate. It may obviate the need for complex,
comprehensive Orthodontic treatment and they have an important role in minimising the
impact of early loss of primary teeth.

Types of Space Maintainers

Space maintainers can be fixed or removable, unilateral or bilateral, see Table 1. 3-5, 7 The
various types of space maintainers and their specific indications are shown in Table 2.

Figure 1: Table of different types of space maintainers

Unilateral space maintainers comprise of a rigid component spanning the edentulous space
and abutting the teeth either side. As long as a fixed unilateral space maintainer is retained
intact there will be no space loss, therefore the efficacy of these space maintainers is
directly related to their longevity.

Multiple fixed unilateral space maintainers can be used on the same patient where tooth
loss occurs in different quadrants, however their use should be limited to single span
edentulous areas as the risk of breakage and failures greatly increases where two adjacent
teeth have been lost. Band and loop space maintainers are the most commonly placed. 11
However, a recent critical appraisal of space maintainers 12 raised concerns about their
longevity and recommended the use of crown and loop space maintainers (a variation of
band loop) for the loss of primary first molars and Glass Fibre Reinforced Resin (GFRCR)
space maintainers for the loss of primary second molars.

Removable appliances may include wire stops mesial and distal to the edentulous space,
these are most commonly partial dentures but can include orthodontic appliances such as
Hawley retainer. Their success is limited by patient compliance and complicated by loss of
the appliance, exfoliation and/or eruption of teeth. Periods of poor compliance can lead to
the appliance no longer fitting and loss of space (Figs 1, 2 and 3).

Figure 1 here

Figure 1: Early loss of upper right second primary molar, removable space maintainer not
worn. This has resulted in mesial migration of upper right first permanent molar resulting
space loss in this quadrant and unilateral Class II molar relationship.

Figure 2 here

Figure 2: Clinical picture of right buccal segment demonstrating the Class II molar
relationship due to mesial migration of upper right first permanent molar.

Figure 3 here

Figure 3: Clinical picture of left buccal segment demonstrating the Class I molar
relationship on left side where the primary tooth is in situ.
When to Space Maintain?

Early loss of second primary molars

Preservation of the primary second molar space is key for guiding the eruption of the first
permanent molar, otherwise mesial migration, space loss and reduction in arch length is
likely to occur. It is particularly important when the leeway space is paramount to resolving
any crowding or in order to preserve the centerline. Space maintenance should, at least, be
considered following the loss of a primary second molar to assess its appropriateness,
except in the presence of a spaced arch where it may not be required as space requirements
are less or if there is hypodontia of the second premolars.10

Generally, second primary molar space should be maintained when the first permanent
molars are erupted so they can be included in the space maintainer appliance. 13

Bilateral loss of multiple primary teeth or failed fixed unilateral space maintainers would
indicate the use of a transpalatal arch (+/- nance button) in the maxilla14 or lingual arch in
the mandible.15 These appliances are especially useful when there is bilateral loss of
multiple primary teeth. There is a risk of impeded eruption or proclination of the lower
labial segment associated with the use of a lower lingual arch 16 and therefore should not be
used prior to eruption the permanent incisor teeth.

Unilateral loss of primary second molars can be space maintained with a number of
different methods. The decision of which to use depends largely on the dental
health/restorative needs of the abutment teeth.

When the abutment teeth are non-carious or only minimally restored GFRCR or simple wire
direct bonded space maintainers are indicated.17 These can be used when there are teeth
either side of the space to bond to and should be placed under rubber dam. When placed
under rubber dam, GFRCR has been shown to have better failure rates than band and loop
space maintainers. 18-20 If rubber dam cannot be used, GFRCR should be avoided. Simple
Wire Direct bonded (DB) space maintainers have also been shown to be effective in
maintaining space in this clinical situation when the abutment tooth is caries free or only
minimally restored. 17 Band and loop space maintainers can be used with both permanent
and primary dentitions when there is loss of a single molar tooth and a tooth available distal
for banding. 21-22 However, the first permanent molars can tip mesially resulting in space
loss which does not occur as mush with palatal and lingual arches as they are fixed to two
posterior teeth across the arch.

When the first permanent molars are unerupted, it would be advantageous to be able to
maintain the second primary molar space in order to guide the path of eruption of the first
permanent molar into an ideal position. One study, graded very low quality reported on the
success and longevity of the distal end shoe which is indicated following the premature loss
of primary molar with an unerupted tooth distal to the primary molar space. 23 These can be
made chairside or using prefabricated kits at the time of extraction and be crown or band
retained. However, this can be lengthy and technically complex procedure that would
require soldering equipment and excellent patient compliance with the treatment.
Compensatory extractions are not usually indicated during loss of a primary second molar so
it may be wise to consider use of a simple modification of an occlusal bar to prevent
overeruption of opposing dentition if they are to remain unopposed for any length of time,
however these are not commonly used. 24-25

Early loss of first primary molars

Space maintenance is not usually needed if premature loss of a primary first molar if the
first permanent molar is erupted and in good occlusion as the resultant space loss and risk
of centerline shift is less.26

Patients that are severely crowded and likely to need premolar extractions, the best
management of this localised space loss is to accept the crowding and plan for extraction of
the first premolars later. If space loss is of particular concern or a non-extraction plan is
indicated, methods described above for extraction of second primary molars can be used.

However, where crowding is severe, i.e. more than 3.5mm (half a unit) per quadrants,
maintaining the leeway space becomes particularly important. 27 One method is to place a
stainless steel crown, with a lab-made soldered band and loop, on restored primary second
molar to maintain the first primary molar space. This is because space loss due to drift may
be so severe that the extraction of one premolar may be insufficient to relieve resultant
crowding so that subsequent orthodontic treatment is more difficult.10

Figure 4 here

Figure 4: Clinical photograph demonstrating early loss of lower first primary molar.

Figure 5 here

Figure 5: DPT radiograph demonstrating resultant space loss following early loss of lower
first primary molars and severity of crowding, where fixed space maintainers could have
been used to maintainer space for the developing premolars.

Crown (or band) and loop space maintainers can be used when there is loss of a single molar
per quadrant with a carious or restored second molar distal to the edentulous space.
Cement loss or cementation is the most common cause of failure in band retained space
maintainers. Crown retained space maintainers have been shown to have better longevity
than band and loop space maintainers and should ideally be used where possible.22

Early loss of primary canines

In the upper arch space maintenance not indicated following the loss deciduous canines, but
if unilateral loss of a primary canine, balancing extractions are indicated to preserve the
centreline.
In the lower arch, unilateral loss of primary canine should also be balanced with
contralateral extraction of primary canine in order to maintain for centre line. Space
maintainers are not generally indicated, however, there is a risk of lingual movement of
lower incisors and distal movement developing permanent canines resulting in space loss. 28

Therefore, whilst space maintenance is not indicated, development and eruption of the
primary first molars and permanent canines should be monitored carefully following early
loss of primary canines.

Early loss of primary incisors

Premature loss of primary incisors does not usually require any space maintenance as only
minimal effects on the developing dentition.29 Following eruption of the primary canines,
early loss of the primary incisors results in minimal space loss.30 Space maintenance could
be considered if they primary incisors are lost before the eruption of the primary canines in
unspaced primary dentition or deep overbite.31

The American Academy of Paediatric Dentistry suggest that a space maintainer could be
considered following the premature loss of a primary incisor when the child has an active
digit sucking habit which if intense and for long enough duration can reduce the space
available for the erupting permanent incisor.8 Counselling to encourage cessation of the
habit should also be undertaken.

Aesthetic concerns from patients/parents is another reason to consider the use of a space
maintainer in this region, but these are for aesthetics rather than true space management
and are not indicated or necessary in the mixed dentition.

Review and Removal of Space maintainers

A number of appointments maybe required in order to make an impression and fabricate

space maintainers. Once the space maintainer is fitted, they should be followed up
regularly - initially for oral hygiene reasons as there is an increase risk plaque accumulation
until the patient is able to clean the appliance. This is especially important during the first
few weeks. Patients should then be reviewed after a month to ensure the appliance is
intact and there are no major problems with wear of the appliance.

The failure rates for all space maintainers are high, therefore, clinicians should expect
repairs and maintenance. Instructions should be given to patients to inspect their own
appliances, attend review appointments regularly and return as soon as any breakages, loss
or slippage occurs. It is advisable to change the method of space maintenance if repeated
failures occur.

Generally, the patient should be reviewed at six monthly review appointment to ensure the
appliance is intact and to monitor the eruption and development of the permanent
dentition. Once the permanent successors begin to erupt the space maintainer can be
removed.

What to check for at review appointments?

 Oral hygiene
 Signs of wear of appliance
 Integrity of appliance and component parts
 Eruption of permanent teeth

Conclusion

This clinical paper aims to outline the benefits of using space maintainers when there has
been early loss of the primary dentition. These include a reduction in the prevalence and
measure of crowding, ectopic eruption or impaction of teeth, increased overjet, crossbite,
increased overbite and poor molar relationship.

There are a small number of contraindications for use of space maintainers (see Table 2),
but generally they are well tolerated in most patients. All space maintainers will accumulate
plaque and are therefore contraindicated in children with poor oral hygiene, poor attenders
and ongoing high caries risk.

However, maintaining the space may reduce the need for further, lengthy and more
complex orthodontic treatment. If in any doubt, practitioners should refer for specialist
orthodontic opinion for the need of provision of a space maintainer and assessment of the
developing malocclusion.

Further research is required into the most effective methods in order to support the clinical
advantages of this simple interceptive measure, but this paper should aid clinicians in
deciding when and how to space maintain (Figure 6).
FLOWCHART:

Figure 7: Flowchart to aid clinical decision making for when and how to space maintain.
Figure 8 Appendix 1: Types of space maintainers – clinical indications, advantages and disadvantages.

Space Maintainer Clinical Indication Advantages Disadvantages

Band and Loop7, 22 Premature loss of either the first or Can be used with permanent and Two visits required for
second primary molar, with a distal primary molar banding fabrication, laboratory
abutment tooth available for expenses, frequent
banding and a loop of wire across cementation failures,
the edentulous space. potential to cause soft tissue
injury from fixed appliances,
first permanent molars can tip
mesially more than in bilateral
space maintainers

Crown and Loop22 Premature loss of primary first Good survival rates and lengths Two visits required for
molar with a carious primary compared to other space fabrication, laboratory
second molar in need of a crown to maintainers, allows use of heavily expenses, if failure occurs
restore. Crown is used on abutment restored abutment tooth. conversion to band and loop
tooth instead of band. space maintainer over crown
is possible, first permanent
molars can tip mesially more
than in bilateral space
maintainers

Glass Fibre Reinforced Composite Non-carious/restored surface for Single visit placement, easy to Technique sensitive, good
Resin20 bonding either side of a primary repair/replace, eliminates isolation and cooperation is
molar space. laboratory expenses, reduced required, risk of bonding
potential for soft tissue damage failures, relatively new
But these SM show high failures compared to metal space technique, long term use has
when placed with no rubber dam. maintainers, increased patient not been evaluated
acceptability

Simple Wire Direct bonded Non carious/restored surface of

enamel for bonding of mesh pads
either side of a primary molar
space. Space maintainer tube is
 welded to mesh and wire is welded
anterior.

Distal End Shoe32 Premature loss of a primary molar Potential for use prior to first Lengthy and technically
with an unerupted tooth distal to permanent molar eruptions complex procedure, requires
the primary molar space. Crown soldering equipment and
fitted on first primary molar and L- excellent patient compliance.
shaped bar with an intra-alveolar
extension soldered to crowns distal
surface to guide first permanent
molar.

Transpalatal Arch14 Maxillary arch only. Useful when loss of multiple Need to await first permanent
adjacent teeth, preserves molar eruption, potential risk
Multiple loss of primary teeth, transverse intermolar distance of soft tissue irritation to
failed fixed unilateral SMs. tongue, no effect on distal
Stainless steel wire attached to drift of canines, does not
molar bands prevent anteroposterior
movement of first permanent
molars

Nance Appliances14 As for TPA. Stainless steel wire Maxillary arch only Potential risk of acrylic pad
attached to molar bands with embedding in palatal soft
acrylic pad adapted to anterior tissues, careful cleaning
aspect of palate instructions to be given, soft
tissue irritation to tongue

Lingual Arch15 Mandibular arch only. First permanent molars must be Can impede eruption of
erupted. mandibular incisors so
Stainless steel wire attached to contraindicated prior to their
bands and adapted to lingual aspect eruption
of mandibular arch
Removable Appliances Multiple loss of primary teeth Two visits required for
fabrication, laboratory
expenses, long term
compliance is often poor.
REFERENCES:

1. Brothwell D J. Guidelines on the use of space maintainers following premature loss of

primary teeth. J Can Dent Assoc 1997; 63(10): 753-766.
2. Northway W M. The not-so-harmless maxillary primary first molar extraction. J Am
Dent Assoc 2000; 131(12): 1711-1720.
3. Ngan P, Alkire R G, Fields H W Jr. Management of space problems in the primary and
mixed dentitions. J Am Dent Assoc 1999; 130(9): 1330-1339.
4. Terlaje R D, Donly K J. Treatment planning for space maintenance in the primary and
mixed dentition. J Dent Child 2001; 68(2): 109-114.
5. Bell R A, Dean J A, McDonald R E, Avery D R. Management of the developing
occlusion. In Dean J A, Avery D R, McDonald R E (eds) McDonald and Avery’s Dentistry
for the Child and Adolescent. 9th ed. pp550-613. Maryland Heights, Mo: Mosby Elsevier;
2011.
6. Littlewood S, Tait A, Mandall N, Lewis D. Orthodontics: the role of removable
appliances in contemporary orthodontics. Br. Dent. J 2001; 191: 304-310.
7. Laing E, Ashley P, Farhad B N, Dalgit S G. Space Maintenance. Int J Paediatr Dent
2009; 19: 155-162.
8. Guideline on Management of the Developing Dentition and Occlusion in Paediatric
Dentistry. Pediatr Dent 2016; 38 (6), 289-301.
9. Dental Space Maintainers for the Management of Premature Loss of Deciduous
Molars: A Review of the Clinical Effectiveness, and Guidelines. Ottawa (ON): Canadian
Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2016. Online information available at:
https://www.ncbi.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0090125/ (accessed August 2017).
10. A Guideline for the Extraction of First Permanent Molars in Children Royal College of
Surgeons of England Guidelines; 2014. Online information available at:
https://www.rcseng.ac.uk/-/media/files/rcs/fds/publications/extractp.pdf?la=en
(accessed August 2017).
11. Qudeimat M A, Fayle S A. The longevity of space maintainers: a retrospective study.
Pediatr Dent 1998; 20: 267-272.
12. Ahmaad A J, Parekh S, Ashley P. Methods of Space Maintenance for Premature Loss
of a Primary Molar: A Review [Accepted Eur J Paediatr Dent]
13. Proffit W R, Fields H W, Sarver D M. Contemporary Orthodontics. 4th ed. St Louis:
Mosby, 2006.
14. Kupietsky A, Tal E. The Transpalatal Arch: An Alternative to the Nance Appliance for
Space Maintenance. Pediatr Dent 2007; 29: 235-238.
15. Burstone C J. Precision lingual arches. Active applications. J Clin Orthod 1989; 23 (2):
101-109.
16. Letti H C, Rizzatto S M, de Menezes L M, Reale C S, de Lima E M, Martinelli F L,
Sagittal changes in lower incisors by the use of lingual arch. Dental Press J Orthod 2013;
18 (3): 29-34.
17. Tunc E S, Bayrak S, Tuloglu N, Eglimez T, Isci D 2012 Evaluation of survival of 3
different fixed space maintainers. Pediatr Dent 2012; 34: 97-102.
18. Subramaniam P, Babu G K, Sunny R. Glass fibre-reinforced composite resin as a
space maintainer: A clinical study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2008; 26: 98-103.
19. Nidhi C, Jain R L, Neeraj M, Harsimrat K. Evaluation of the clinical efficacy of glass
fibre reinforced composite resin as a space maintainer and its comparison with the
conventional band and loop space. Minerva Stomatol 2012; 61: 21-30
20. Garg A, Samadi F, Jaiswal J N, Saha S. ‘Metal to resin’: A comparative evaluation of
conventional band and loop space maintainers with the fibre reinforced composite resin
space maintainer in children. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2014; 32: 111-116.
21. Sasa I S, Hasan A A, Qudeimat M A. Longevity of Band and Loop Space Maintainers
Using Glass Ionomer Cement: A Prospective Study. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2009; 10: 6-
10
22. Qudeimat M A, Sasa I S. Clinical success and longevity of band and loop compared to
crown and loop space maintainers. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2015; 16: 391-396.
23. Brill, W A. The distal shoe space maintainer: chairside fabrication and clinical
performance. Pediatr Dent 2002; 24: 561-565.
24. Bijoor R R, Kohli K. Contemporary space maintenance for the pediatric patient. N Y
State Dent J 2005; 71: 32-35.
25. Gill D S. Orthodontics at a Glance. 1st ed. Oxford, England: Blackwell Munksgaard,
2008.
26. Yin Y T J, Lin Y T. Long-term space changes after premature loss of a primary
maxillary first molar. JDS 2017; 12(1): 44-48.
27. Terlaje R D, Donly K J. Treatment planning for space maintenance in the primary and
mixed dentition. ASDC J Dent Child 2001; 68: 108-114.
28. Foley, T F, Wright G Z, Weinberger S J. Management of lower incisor crowding in the
early mixed dentition. ASDC J Dent Child 1996; 63: 169–174.
29. Andreason J O, Andreason F M, Andersson L. Text-book and Colour Atlas of
Traumatic Injuries to Teeth. 4th ed. UK: Blackwell Munksgaard, 2007.
30. Fricker J, Kharbanda O P, Dando J. Orthodontic diagnosis and treatment in the mixed
dentition. In A Cameron and R Widmer (eds) A Handbook of Pediatric Dentistry. 3rd ed.
London: Mosby Elsevier; 2013.
31. Moyers R E, Riolo M L. Handbook of orthodontics. 4th ed. pp361. Chicago, Il:
Yearbook medical publishers. Inc. 1988
32. Barberia E, Lucavechi T, Cardenas D, Maroto M. Free-end Space Maintainers:
Design, Utilisation and Advantages. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2007; 31 (1): 5-8.