Research on Cervical Margin Relocation

17 Feb 2018 - 54192

The Cervical Margin Relocation (CMR) was proposed more than 15 years ago, and in the last decade became more and more popular among dental practitioners [1-2].

CMR is indicated when the gingival margin of a Class II interproximal cavity cannot be isolated with rubber dam alone, in alternative to perform surgical crown lengthening. CMR consists on placing a base of direct resin composite using a metal interproximal matrix to elevate the interproximal underneath indirect bonded restorations. Consequently, margins can be predictably caught by a conventional impression and/or intraoral optical scanning (IOS) [3]. Different papers described clinical procedures of CMR and evaluated in the lab this technique. [4-10]

Location of a subgengival margin can affect the periodontal health and therefore healthy periodontal tissues, defined by a Probing Pocket Depth (PPD) less/equal than 4mm without Bleeding on Probing (BoP).

Unfortunately, no clinical trial evaluating periodontal tissue response on indirect adhesive restorations placed on posterior teeth with CMR are available till now [11].

Also, the literature reports about the influence of approximal restorations extension on the development of secondary caries, showing that restorations ending below the CEJ showed significantly increased risk for failure [12-13].

 

The primary aim of this clinical trial was to evaluate BoP on single adhesive indirect restorations made on posterior teeth with one interproximal margin relocated cervically; and secondary, to analyse the correlation between depth of the interproximal margins and BoP. The null hypothesis tested was that there is no statistically significant difference between margins with or without CMR regarding periodontal tissue inflammation (BoP).

Materials and methods

A consecutive sample of 35 restorations in 35 patients in need of one single partial crown (onlay) on posterior teeth was placed between January and April 2016. A partial restoration was performed from the pool of patients accessing the Department of Prosthodontics and Dental Materials of the University of Siena, Italy. All of them had an old restoration and some carious tissue to be replaced (Fig. 1a-1e).

Patients written consent to the trial was obtained after having provided a complete explanation of the aim of the study. Ethical approval was achieved beforehand by the University of Siena, Italy.

 

Caries cleaning of the affected area was performed after placing a first matrix band to retract and simultaneously protect the soft tissue, the curvature of the metal matrix was properly adapted to the curvature of the tooth to achieve the best cervical fit was possible [5]. In one proximal box CMR procedure was performed using G-Premio Bond, simultaneously used to perform hybridization of entire exposed dentin, and universal flow resin composite applied in two or three thin layers depending the depth and size of the cavity (GC Co. Tokyo, Japan) (Figs. 2a-2d). After final cavity’s preparation, an impression was taken (Ex’lance, GC Co., Tokyo, Japan)(Fig. 2e) and sent to the laboratory in order to make the restoration using lithium disilicate (LS2) press material (LiSi Press, GC Co. Tokyo, Japan) (Fig. 3a). A temporary restoration was made with heat-polymerizing polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) acrylic resin and luted. Patients were instructed to use a 0.2 % chlorhexidine gluconate solution for 7 days until they could perform regular oral hygiene and returned 2 weeks later for the impression procedures, giving enough time for soft tissue adaptation and maturation after teeth preparation. The restorations were made in the laboratory, then tried-in, and margins were examined and carefully verified for fit and extension. Rubber dam was always placed to isolate the abutment (Fig. 3b). The restorations were luted following manufacturer’s instructions using proprietary’s cement (Link Force, GC Co., Tokyo, Japan) after being sandblasted, etched with fluoridric acid at 5 % for 60 seconds and a coat of multi primer being applied and left to evaporate for 1 minute.

Cement excess was carefully removed, and occlusion was slightly adjusted when needed. Intra-sulcular margin position was verified, and oral hygiene instructions were given to the patients.

The restorations were placed in the time period between January 2016 and April 2016 and examined for (BoP) at baseline (cementation of the restorations), and after 12 months by two calibrated operators (Figs. 4a-4b and video).

At baseline, the restorative margin position in relation to the gingival margin was recorded quantifying by probing in mm [14], and the linear distance from the bone crest was calculated in mm by intraoral x-ray. In addition, intraoral x-rays were made at the 12-month recall as well.

All clinical procedures were made using ~ 3.5/4.5 magnification.

Results

The CMR was associated with statistically significant increased scores for BoP. Gingival Index (GI) and Plaque Index (PI) were not statistically different between the groups. At the end of the experimental period, 53% and 31.5% of sites (Group 1 and 2 respectively) were positive to BoP: this difference was statistically significant (p=0.10). The linear distance between the bone crest and the restorative margin, assessed by a radiographic analysis, was 2 mm in 13 out of 19 experimental sites of group 1 and 6 out of 11 of group 2.

Fig. 1

Old indirect restoration made with porcelain fused to metal in need to be replaced because secondary decay.

Fig. 2

Removal of the old restoration

Fig. 3

X-ray of the cavity after the old restoration was removed.

Fig. 4

The cavity after decay removal. 

Fig. 5

The cavity after decay removal, lateral view. 

Fig. 6

The application of a metal matrix protected the soft tissue, although after removing the matrix the tissue is slightly bleeding. Under rubber dam and after adaptating metal matrix and wedge to the emergence profile of the tooth, the procedure of immediate dentin sealing and cervical margin relocation are perfomed: the first layer of flowable resin composite is already light-cured.

Fig. 7

Complete build-up of the cavity.

Fig. 8

Immediately after the build up, still under rubber dam, the final preparation was made.

Fig. 9

The final preparation.

Fig. 10

The traditional impression.

Fig. 11

The final LiSi Press partial crown

Fig. 12

The crown after being luted under rubber dam.

Fig. 13

Recall after 12 months; clinical view.

Fig. 14

Recall after 12 months; radiographic views.

 

Conclusions

Within the limitations of this study, higher incidence of BoP can be expected around CMR margins and in coincidence with margins. CMR of margins is a sensitive-technique, especially when deep subgingival margin is selected and bonding restorative procedures are performed below the cementum enamel margins.

Bibliography

Dietschi D, Spreafico R. Adhesive metal-free restorations: current concepts for the esthetic treatment of posterior teeth. Quintessence 2 (1997) 60-77.

Dietschi D, Spreafico R. Current clinical concepts for adhesive cementation of toothcolored posterior restorations. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent 10 (1998) 47-54.

Magne P, Spreafico R. Deep Margin Elevation: A Paradign Shift. Am J Esthet Dent 2(2012) 86-96.

Rocca GT, Kreiji I. Bonded indirect restorations for posterior teeth: from cavity preparation to provisionalization. Quintessence Int 38 (2007) 371-379.

Rocca GT, Rizcalla N, Krejci I, Dietschi D. Concepts and evidence-based procedures for bonded inlays and onlays. Part II. Guide lines from cavity’s preparation to final restoration. Int J Esthet Dent 3 (2015) 370-392.

Spreafico RC, Krejci I, Dietschi D. Clinical performance and marginal adaptation of class II direct and semidirect composite restorations over 3.5 years in vivo. J Dent 33 (2005) 499-507.

Veneziani M. Adhesive restorations in the posterior area with subgingival cervical margins: new classification and differentiated treatment approach. Eur J Esthet Dent 5 (2010) 50-76.

Dietschi D, Moor L. Evaluation of the marginal and internal adaptation of different ceramic and composite inlay systems after an in vitro fatigue test. J Adhes Dent 1 (1999) 41-56.

Frankenberger R, Lohbauer U, Schaible RB, Nikolaenko SA, Naumann M. Luting of ceramic inlays in vitro: marginal quality of self-etch and etch-and-rinse adhesives versus self-etch cements. Dent Mater 24 (2008)185-91.

Zaruba M, Gohring TN, Wegehaupt FJ, Attin T. Influence of a proximal margin elevation technique on marginal adaptation of ceramic inlays. Acta Odontologica Scandinavica 71 (2013) 317-324.

Kielbassa AM, Philipp F. Restoring proximal cavities of molars using the proximal box elevation technique: Systematic review and report of a case. Quintessence Int 46 (2015) 751-764.

Kuper NK, Opdam NJ, Bronkhorst EM, Huysmans MC. The influence of approximal restoration extension on the development of secondary caries. J Dent. 2012 Mar;40(3):241-7

Ainamo J, Bay I. Problems and proposals for recording gingivitis and plaque. Int Dent J 25 (1975) 229–235.

Frankenberger R, Hehn J, Hajto J, Kramer N, Naumann M, Koch A, Roggendorf MJ. Effect of proximal box elevation with resin composite on marginal quality of ceramic inlays in vitro. Clin Oral Invest 17 (2013) 177-183.

Spreafico R, Marchesi G, Turco G, Frassetto A, Di Lenarda R, Mazzoni A, Cadenaro M, Breschi L. Evaluation of the In Vitro Effects of Cervical Marginal Relocation Using Composite Resins on the Marginal Quality of CAD/Cam Crowns. J Adhes Dent 18 (2016) 355-362.

Koken S, Sorrentino R, Juloski J, Nagasawa Y, Ferrari M. Correspondence between SEM external margins’ observation and nanoleakage. In press.2017

Flores-de-Jacoby L, Zafiropoulos GG, Ciancio S. The effect of crown margin location on plaque and periodontal health. Int J Periodont Rest Dent 9(1989)197–205.

Müller HP. The effect of artificial crown margins at the gingival margin on the periodontal conditions in a group of periodontally supervised patients treated with fixed bridges. J Clin Periodontol 13 (1986) 97–102.

Valderhaug J, Ellingsen JE, Jokstad A. Oral hygiene, periodontal conditions and carious lesions in patients treated with dental bridges. A 15-year clinical and radiographic follow-up study. J Clin Periodontol 20 (1993) 482–4.

Schätzle M, Land NP, Anerud A, Boysen H, Bürgin W, Löe H. The influence of margins of restorations of the periodontal tissues over 26 years. J Clin Periodontol 28 (2001) 57–64.

Lang NP, Kiel RA, Anderhalden K. Clinical and microbiological effects of subgingival restorations with overhanging or clinically perfect margins. J Clin Periodontol 10 (1983) 563–578.

Cagidiaco MC, Ferrari M, Vichi A, Davidson CL. Mapping of tubule and intertubule surface areas available for bonding in Class V and II preparation. J Dent 25 (1997) 379-389.

Ferrari M, Cagidiaco MC, Davidson CL. Resistance of cementum in Class II and V acvities to penetration by an adhesive system. Dent Mater 13 (1997) 157-162.

Optimizing dentin bond durability: control of collagen degradation by matrix metalloproteinases and cysteine cathepsins. Tjäderhane L, Nascimento FD, Breschi L, Mazzoni A, Tersariol ILS, Geraldeli S, Tezvergil-Mutluay A, Carrilho MR, Carvalho RM, Tay FR, Pashley DH. Dent Mater. 29 (2013) 116–135.

Liu Y, Tjäderhane L, Breschi L, Mazzoni A, Li N, Mao J, Pashley DH, Tay FR. Limitations in Bonding to Dentin and Experimental Strategies to Prevent Bond Degradation J Dent Res 90 (2011) 953–968.

Nevins M, Skurow HM. The intracrevicular restorative margin, the biologic width, and thmaintenance of the gingival margin. Int J Periodont Rest Dent 4 (1984) 30–49.

Lindhe J. Textbook of clinical periodontology, ed 2. Copenhagen; Munksgaard, 1989.