IADR Abstract Archives
Cervical Margin Relocation in Indirect Adhesive Restorations: a Systematic Review
Objectives: The aim of this review was to:
-Determine the different materials used for cervical margin relocation
- Discuss their effect on periodontal and dental tissues
- Expose the limits of cervical margin relocation compared to tooth lengthening
Methods: An electronic search was conducted on MEDLINE database, acessed through PUBMED. Only articles from January 2010 to February 2021 were screened. The following main keywords were used from the MeSH Database: "Cervical margin relocation", "Deep margin elevation" and "Proximal box elevation". We also searched "dental restoration permanent", "Dental marginal adaptation" and "Crown lengthening".
Results: Fifteen articles were taken into consideration: 6 case control studies, 5 randomized controlled studies, 2 case reports, 1 cohort and 1 systematic review. The most used CMR materials throughout the articles was Traditional composites (9 times), then Flowable composites (7 times), Adhesive resin cements, Glass Ionomer Cements and Resin Modified Glass Ionomer (3 times each). The most common restoration type linked with CMR were Inlay/Onlay restorations found 9 articles, full crowns were found in 4 articles , Overlays were found in 3 articles .One article studied both full crowns and Inlay/Onlay. All materials seemed suitable and did not influence fracture resistance whether it was RMGI, Resin based composites or Bulk fill composites. A clinical trial concluded that higher incidence of bleeding can be expected around CMR treated teeth and in coincidence with deep margins placed at or closer than 2mm from the bone crest.
Conclusions: The cervical margin relocation technique has its place as minimally invasive procedure that goes well with aesthetic restorative materials such as Ceramics and Composites , which makes it very appealing. It also may be an alternative to surgical crown lengthening when certain clinical factors are present, yet it cannot definitely replace it.
-Determine the different materials used for cervical margin relocation
- Discuss their effect on periodontal and dental tissues
- Expose the limits of cervical margin relocation compared to tooth lengthening
Methods: An electronic search was conducted on MEDLINE database, acessed through PUBMED. Only articles from January 2010 to February 2021 were screened. The following main keywords were used from the MeSH Database: "Cervical margin relocation", "Deep margin elevation" and "Proximal box elevation". We also searched "dental restoration permanent", "Dental marginal adaptation" and "Crown lengthening".
Results: Fifteen articles were taken into consideration: 6 case control studies, 5 randomized controlled studies, 2 case reports, 1 cohort and 1 systematic review. The most used CMR materials throughout the articles was Traditional composites (9 times), then Flowable composites (7 times), Adhesive resin cements, Glass Ionomer Cements and Resin Modified Glass Ionomer (3 times each). The most common restoration type linked with CMR were Inlay/Onlay restorations found 9 articles, full crowns were found in 4 articles , Overlays were found in 3 articles .One article studied both full crowns and Inlay/Onlay. All materials seemed suitable and did not influence fracture resistance whether it was RMGI, Resin based composites or Bulk fill composites. A clinical trial concluded that higher incidence of bleeding can be expected around CMR treated teeth and in coincidence with deep margins placed at or closer than 2mm from the bone crest.
Conclusions: The cervical margin relocation technique has its place as minimally invasive procedure that goes well with aesthetic restorative materials such as Ceramics and Composites , which makes it very appealing. It also may be an alternative to surgical crown lengthening when certain clinical factors are present, yet it cannot definitely replace it.