The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  25 (2024)
Volume  24 (2023)
Volume  23 (2022)
Volume  22 (2021)
Volume  21 (2020)
Volume  20 (2019)
Volume  19 (2018)
Volume  18 (2017)
Volume  17 (2016)
Volume  16 (2015)
Volume  15 (2014)
Volume  14 (2013)
Volume  13 (2012)
Volume  12 (2011)
Volume  11 (2010)
Volume  10 (2009)
Volume  9 (2008)
Volume  8 (2007)
Volume  7 (2006)
Volume  6 (2005)
Volume  5 (2004)
Volume  4 (2003)
Volume  3 (2002)
Volume  2 (2001)
Volume  1 (1999)
Related articles

VOLUME 23 , ISSUE 6 ( June, 2022 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

The Opinions and Practices of Saudi Arabian Dentists about Cervical Margin Relocation

Khadijah M Baik

Keywords : Cervical margin relocation, Crown lengthening surgery, Deep margin elevation, Deep proximal carious lesions

Citation Information : Baik KM. The Opinions and Practices of Saudi Arabian Dentists about Cervical Margin Relocation. J Contemp Dent Pract 2022; 23 (6):639-645.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3364

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 23-09-2022

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2022; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study was to assess the opinions and practices of different dentists about the cervical margin relocation (CMR) concept. Materials and methods: A total of 432 general dentists, advanced general dentists (AGDs), periodontists, restorative dentists, and prosthodontists practicing in Saudi Arabia were approached in person or asked to complete an electronic survey (Google Forms) assessing demographic data and their opinions and practice of CMR. Differences between groups were assessed using the Chi-squared test, and binary regression models were constructed to identify predictors of opinions and practice of CMR. Results: About half of the surveyed dentists practiced CMR when indicated, but many felt that it represents an invasion of the biological width and might affect crown survival. Participants had several, often concurrent concerns about CMR. The opinions and practices of CMR were influenced by several factors including educational degree, work setting, country of clinical training, years of experience, and specialty. Conclusion: The relatively conservative attitude of dentists towards CMR is justifiable, as it is a relatively new concept with little long-term clinical data. Clinical trials with sufficient follow-up periods are now needed to evaluate outcomes from CMR to provide further confidence to dentists to implement the procedure. Clinical significance: Deep proximal carious lesions extending subgingivally is a common clinical scenario. Assessing the opinion and practice of dentists towards conservative treatment with CMR provides the basis for encouraging practitioners to use the procedure both clinically and in clinical trials.

PDF Share
  1. Magne P, Spreafico RC. Deep margin elevation: A paradigm shift. Am J Esthet Dent 2012;2(2):86–96.
  2. Dietschi D, Spreafico R. Current clinical concepts for adhesive cementation of tooth-colored posterior restorations. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent 1998;10(1):47–54; quiz 56. PMID: 9582662.
  3. Pahel BT, Vann WF Jr, Divaris K, et al. A contemporary examination of first and second permanent molar emergence. J Dent Res 2017;96(10):1115–1121. DOI: 10.1177/0022034517716395.
  4. Craddock HL, Youngson CC. A study of the incidence of overeruption and occlusal interferences in unopposed posterior teeth. Br Dent J 2004;196(6):341–348; discussion 337. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4811082.
  5. Saber AM, Altoukhi DH, Horaib MF, et al. Consequences of early extraction of compromised first permanent molar: a systematic review. BMC Oral Health 2018;18(1):59. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-018-0516-4.
  6. Ingber JS, Rose LF, Coslet JG. The “biologic width”: A concept in periodontics and restorative dentistry. Alpha Omegan 1977;70(3): 62–65. PMID: 276259.
  7. D'Arcangelo C, Vanini L, Casinelli M, et al. Adhesive cementation of indirect composite inlays and onlays: A literature review. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2015;36(8):570–577; quiz 578. PMID: 26355440.
  8. Keys W, Carson SJ. Rubber dam may increase the survival time of dental restorations. Evid Based Dent 2017;18(1):19–20. DOI: 10.1038/sj.ebd.6401221.
  9. Mugri MH, Sayed ME, Nedumgottil BM, et al. Treatment prognosis of restored teeth with crown lengthening vs. deep margin elevation: A systematic review. Materials (Basel) 2021;14(21):6733. DOI: 10.3390/ma14216733.
  10. Alhumaidan G, Alammar R, Al Asmari D, et al. Clinical performance of indirect restorations with cervical margin relocation in posterior teeth: A systematic review. Dent Rev 2022;2(1):100034. DOI:10.1016/j.dentre.2022.100034.
  11. Bresser RA, Gerdolle D, van den Heijkant IA, et al. Up to 12 years clinical evaluation of 197 partial indirect restorations with deep margin elevation in the posterior region. J Dent 2019;91:103227. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2019.103227.
  12. Frankenberger R, Hehn J, Hajto J, et al. Effect of proximal box elevation with resin composite on marginal quality of ceramic inlays in vitro. Clin Oral Investig 2013;17(1):177–183. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-012-0677-5.
  13. Roggendorf MJ, Kramer N, Dippold C, et al. Effect of proximal box elevation with resin composite on marginal quality of resin composite inlays in vitro. J Dent 2012;40(12):1068–1073. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2012.08.019.
  14. Zaruba M, Gohring TN, Wegehaupt FJ, et al. Influence of a proximal margin elevation technique on marginal adaptation of ceramic inlays. Acta Odontol Scand 2013;71(2):317–324. DOI: 10.3109/00016357. 2012.680905.
  15. Ilgenstein I, Zitzmann NU, Buhler J, et al. Influence of proximal box elevation on the marginal quality and fracture behavior of root-filled molars restored with CAD/CAM ceramic or composite onlays. Clin Oral Investig 2015;19(5):1021–1028. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-014-1325-z.
  16. Spreafico R, Marchesi G, Turco G, et al. Evaluation of the in vitro effects of cervical marginal relocation using composite resins on the marginal quality of CAD/CAM crowns. J Adhes Dent 2016;18(4):355–362.
  17. Muller V, Friedl KH, Friedl K, et al. Influence of proximal box elevation technique on marginal integrity of adhesively luted Cerec inlays. Clin Oral Investig 2017;21(2):607–612. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-016-1927-8.
  18. Bresser RA, van de Geer L, Gerdolle D, et al. Influence of deep margin elevation and preparation design on the fracture strength of indirectly restored molars. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2020;110:103950. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2020.103950.
  19. Gonçalves DDS, Cura M, Ceballos L, et al. Influence of proximal box elevation on bond strength of composite inlays. Clin Oral Investig 2017;21(1):247–254. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-016-1782-7.
  20. Koken S, Juloski J, Sorrentino R, et al. Marginal sealing of relocated cervical margins of mesio–occluso–distal overlays. J Oral Sci 2018;60(3):460–468. DOI: 10.2334/josnusd.17-0331.
  21. Honey J, Lynch CD, Burke F, et al. Ready for practice? A study of confidence levels of final year dental students at Cardiff University and University College Cork. Eur J Dent Educ 2011;15(2):98–103. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0579.2010.00646.x.
  22. Fine P, Leung A, Bentall C, et al. The impact of confidence on clinical dental practice. Eur J Dent Educ 2019;23(2):159–167. DOI: 10.1111/eje.12415.
  23. Fine P, Louca C, Leung A. The impact of a postgraduate learning experience on the confidence of general dental practitioners. Dent J (Basel) 2017;5(2):16. DOI: 10.3390/dj5020016.
  24. Bidra AS, Daubert DM, Garcia LT, et al. A systematic review of recall regimen and maintenance regimen of patients with dental restorations. Part 1: Tooth-borne restorations. J Prosthodont 2016;25(Suppl 1-S1):S2–S15. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.12417.
  25. Carvalho BAS, Duarte CAB, Silva JF, et al. Clinical and radiographic evaluation of the periodontium with biologic width invasion. BMC Oral Health 2020;20(1):116. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-020-01101-x.
  26. Frese C, Wolff D, Staehle HJ. Proximal box elevation with resin composite and the dogma of biological width: Clinical R2-technique and critical review. Oper Dent 2014;39(1):22–31. DOI: 10.2341/13-052-T.
  27. Bertoldi C, Monari E, Cortellini P, et al. Clinical and histological reaction of periodontal tissues to subgingival resin composite restorations. Clin Oral Investig 2020;24(2):1001–1011. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-019-02998-7.
  28. Ghezzi C, Brambilla G, Conti A, et al. Cervical margin relocation: Case series and new classification system. Int J Esthet Dent 2019;14(3): 272–284. PMID: 31312813.
  29. Oilo M, Quinn GD. Fracture origins in twenty-two dental alumina crowns. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2016;53:93–103. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2015.08.006.
  30. Zhang H, Li H, Cong Q, et al. Effect of proximal box elevation on fracture resistance and microleakage of premolars restored with ceramic endocrowns. PLoS One 2021;16(5):e0252269. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0252269.
  31. Al-Madi EM, Al-Shiddi M, Al-Saleh S, et al. Developing a dental curriculum for the 21(st) century in a new dental school in Saudi Arabia. J Dent Educ 2018;82(6):591–601. DOI: 10.21815/JDE.018.066.
  32. Halawany HS, Al-Jazairy YH, Al-Maflehi N, et al. Application of the European-modified dental clinical learning environment inventory (DECLEI) in dental schools in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Eur J Dent Educ 2017;21(4):e50–e58. DOI: 10.1111/eje.12218.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.