Effect of two different type of space maintainers on different types of dental arches

Effect Of Conventional Space Maintainer AND Rapp Design Space Maintainer for missing first primary molar in early mixed dentition arch with Different Space Discrepancy: A Randomised Clinical Trial - NIL

Status

Active, not recruiting

Phases

Phase 3

Study type

Interventional

Source

CTRI

Registry ID

CTRI/2025/04/084749

Enrollment

Registered

2025-04-15

Start date

Unknown

Completion date

Unknown

Last updated

2025-04-28

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

None listed

Interventions

Intervention1: Conventional Space maintainer for 6 months: Conventional Space maintainer in prematurely lost first primary molar for 6 months Control Intervention1: Rapp design space maintainer: Rapp

Eligibility

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: Patients with mixed dentition, 6s erupted or atleast crown half visible. Patients with unrestorable unilateral or bilateral first primary molar (maxillary or mandibular). Erupting or intraalveolar mandibular lateral incisor. • Angles Class I /Mesial step or End on / flush terminal occlusion. • Patients in need of space maintainer in only one arch; either mandibular or maxillary arch. • Patients with no retroclined incisors, normal overjet and normal overbite.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: • Patients with severe early childhood caries. • Patients Erupted lateral mandibular incisor. • Patients who are highly uncooperative. • Patients who are not willing to participate in the study. • Patients with developmental abnormalities • Absence of permanent successor of first primary molar.

Design outcomes

Primary

Measure	Time frame
1.To observe and compare the spatial changes: intercanine arch length, intercanine arch width at 0,3 and 6 months in the maxillary and mandibular arches with TSALD 0-2mm in the groups: A) receiving Conventional and Rapp design space maintainers. B) receiving Conventional space maintainer and the Control Group. C) receiving Rapp Design Space Maintainer and the Control Group. 2. To observe and compare the spatial changes: intercanine arch length, intercanine arch width at 0,3 and 6 months in the maxillary and mandibular arches with TSALD 2-5mm in the groups: A)receiving Conventional and Rapp design space maintainers. B) receiving Conventional space maintainer and the Control Group. C) receiving Rapp Design Space Maintainer and the Control Group. Timepoint: 6 months	—

Measure

Time frame

1.To observe and compare the spatial changes: intercanine arch length, intercanine arch width at 0,3 and 6 months in the maxillary and mandibular arches with TSALD 0-2mm in the groups: A) receiving Conventional and Rapp design space maintainers. B) receiving Conventional space maintainer and the Control Group. C) receiving Rapp Design Space Maintainer and the Control Group. 2. To observe and compare the spatial changes: intercanine arch length, intercanine arch width at 0,3 and 6 months in the maxillary and mandibular arches with TSALD 2-5mm in the groups: A)receiving Conventional and Rapp design space maintainers. B) receiving Conventional space maintainer and the Control Group. C) receiving Rapp Design Space Maintainer and the Control Group. Timepoint: 6 months

—

Secondary

Measure	Time frame
1. To observe and compare the “D ? space, C/C relation, E/E relation and 6/6 relation, arch length and arch width at 0,3 and 6 months in the maxillary and mandibular arches in test and control group. 2. To correlate incisor space discrepancy with intercanine arch width in the test and the control group. Timepoint: 0 months 6 months	—

Countries

India

Contacts

Public ContactHIMANI GUPTA

Aligarh Muslim University

hmngpt1707@gmail.com9634717399

Outcome results