Influence of proximal box elevation on bond strength of composite inlays

Deep margin elevation in restorative dentistry: A scoping review

OBJECTIVES

Deep margin elevation (DME) is a restorative approach offering the possibility of performing stepwise elevation of deep proximal cavities to create more favourable margins for direct or indirect restorations. The objectives of this scoping review were to explore what is known or unknown about DME by describing a wide ranging evidence base including peer reviewed literature and non-traditionally published information on the web.

DATA

Data were extracted from the included evidence in order to describe the following: the extent and nature of the evidence base; the situations which are appropriate for DME; the materials and techniques which are used; the outcomes which have been measured in empirical studies; the risks which have been reported; and the findings which have been reported in studies which compared DME to surgical crown lengthening.

SOURCES

This scoping review included a wide range of published evidence and extensive web searching for grey literature, including CPD, training and multimedia information.

STUDY SELECTION

The findings revealed a range of published literature as well as freely available, online information advising practitioners about DME. Most empirical evidence was based on in vitro studies, and there were few clinical studies comparing DME to crown lengthening. Online information included recent, multimedia sources.

CONCLUSIONS

DME is a technique that can be used with motivated patients with good oral hygiene if rubber dam isolation is achieved, if there is no invasion of the connective tissue space, and if a strict restorative protocol is adhered to.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

With phasing out of amalgam and adhesive dentistry increasing in popularity, DME addresses multiple clinical problems associated with sub-gingival margins prior to restoration.

Navigating the practical-knowledge gap in deep margin elevation: A step towards a structured case selection - a review

The deep margin elevation (DME) technique has gained popularity because of numerous supporting case reports. However, some clinicians are cautious regarding using this technique owing to the lack of clear case selection criteria for DME application. This review aimed to analyze case reports and a series of DME cases to determine pre-/post-operative evaluation methods that could be used to suggest a pre-operative case selection checklist for DME. An electronic database search was conducted in June 2021 and updated by June 2023 using selected terms from PubMed, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, EBSCO, and Scopus. The search was limited to English-language publications and was not restricted to the date. The inclusion criteria were case reports/series addressing periodontal and restorative outcomes of DME. The search identified 217 articles, 76 of which were pertinent. However, only six case reports and one case series satisfied the inclusion criteria. None of the selected studies followed any reporting guidelines, which led to significant information gaps. While the reviewed studies reported favorable outcomes, standardized protocols for evaluating pre-/post-operative restorative and periodontal status were lacking. The post-operative follow-up period varied from 3 months to 6 years. Designing and implementing pre-/post-operative guidelines hold the potential for ensuring the safe application of the DME technique. This may enhance our understanding of the suitability and efficacy of such non-invasive technique in future clinical trials.

Clinical significance

Handling deep cavities and preparing crowns are challenging. However, a lack of understanding of when to perform DME can lead to missed opportunities for conservative treatment, thereby a disservice to the patient. Provision of safe guidelines should be employed by clinicians until further evidence either supports or contradicts this treatment method.

Is Deep margin elevation a reliable tool for cervical margin relocation? - A comparative review

The permanence of deep subgingival restorations are questionable both functionally and biologically. Crown lengthening is one of the traditionally performing procedures to visualize and relocate the deep margins, but the limitations of the invasive surgical procedure are anatomical complications like exposure of root concavities or furcation, violation of biological width, post operative discomfort because of sutures or periodontal packs; and less patient compliance. Other than crown lengthening, researchers tried some other techniques like modified matrix adaptation technique, using retraction cord, making holes in matrix band and flowing resin modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) to the root or cervical caries, orthodontic extrusion. But most of these procedures are failed to give adequate clinical success. Deep margin elevation (DME) is one of the minimally invasive and successful procedure performing in deep subgingival caries. But the evidences and knowledge in this technique is limited among practitioners. This review is to evaluate the applicability of DME, the current clinical concepts, techniques and materials for DME; and a comparison with traditionally used various techniques for cervical margin relocation also concluding that currently available various clinical parameters with this technique.

Deep margin elevation-Present status and future directions

OBJECTIVE

Deep margin elevation (DME) is a treatment approach to relocate the cervical margin of teeth with subgingival defects to a supragingival position with a direct restoration to facilitate rubber dam isolation, impression taking, and bonding of indirect restorations. This article provides an overview of the current scientific evidence on DME and future directions for research.

OVERVIEW

The review included 38 studies on DME, most conducted in vitro. These studies indicate that DME has no detrimental effect on the fracture resistance of restored teeth. Evidence on the impact of DME on marginal quality is conflicting, but most in vitro studies observed no negative effect. Clinical studies, most comprising small patient cohorts, demonstrated favorable restorative outcomes and suggest that DME restorations made with scrupulous care are compatible with periodontal health. Bleeding on probing may occur more frequently at sites with DME, though evidence on this is not unequivocal.

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence, based largely on laboratory studies and limited clinical data, supports DME as a viable approach to restore teeth with localized subgingival defects. However, further clinical studies with long-term follow-ups are required to provide corroborative evidence.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Current evidence suggests that DME is a viable approach to restore teeth with localized subgingival defects as a possible alternative to surgical crown lengthening. Proper working field isolation, meticulous care in the bonding and buildup procedure, and biofilm removal through patient-performed oral hygiene and professional maintenance care are crucial. As scant clinical trial-based evidence is available today, further research is needed to evaluate the long-term performance of DME restorations and their impact on periodontal health.

Deep Margin Elevation: Current Concepts and Clinical Considerations: A Review

Dietschi and Spreafico first proposed deep margin elevation (DME) in 1998 to address the multiple clinical problems associated with sub-gingival margins, where sub-gingival margins will be repositioned coronally using composite resin restorations. Given that dentistry is directing towards conservatism, its use is currently trending. Materials and Methods: a search was performed through PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar search engines to obtain relevant articles with no time restriction. Results: With biological width taken into consideration, well-defined and polished sub-gingival restorations are compatible with periodontal health. Marginal integrity in the DME technique seems to be affected by the type of adhesive, restoration, and incremental layering of the restoration. Regarding fracture resistance, DME has no significant effects. Conclusion: The DME technique seems to be a minimally invasive alternative to surgical crown lengthening (SCL) and orthodontic extrusion (OE) with respect to biological width. Well-controlled clinical trials are limited in this field; further long-term follow-up studies emphasizing the periodontal outcomes and prevention of complications are needed.

Deep Margin Elevation: A Literature Review

A conservative approach for restoring deep proximal lesions is to apply an increment of composite resin over the preexisting cervical margin to relocate it coronally, the so-called “deep margin elevation” (DME). A literature search for research articles referring to DME published from January 1998 until November 2021 was conducted using MEDLINE (PubMed), Ovid, Scopus, Cochrane Library and Semantic Scholar databases applying preset inclusion and exclusion criteria. Elevation material and adhesive system employed for luting seem to be significant factors concerning the marginal adaptation of the restoration. This technique does not affect bond strength, fatigue behavior, fracture resistance, failure pattern or repairability. DME and subgingival restorations are compatible with periodontal health, given that they are well-polished and refined. The available literature is limited mainly to in vitro studies. Therefore, randomized clinical trials with extended follow-up periods are necessary to clarify all aspects of the technique and ascertain its validity in clinical practice. For the time being, DME should be applied with caution respecting three criteria: capability of field isolation, the perfect seal of the cervical margin provided by the matrix, and no invasion of the connective compartment of biological width.

Influence of the adhesive strategy in the sealing ability of resin composite inlays after deep margin elevation

Background

The aim of this study was to determine the influence of the gingival margin position and the adhesive strategy selected to perform deep margin elevation (DME) in marginal sealing of resin composite inlays by a nanoleakage test.

Material and Methods

12 sound third molars were selected and expulsive MOD cavities for inlays were prepared. Experimental groups were established according to gingival margin location (enamel: 1 mm above cemento-enamel junction (CEJ), dentin: 1 mm below CEJ, or DME, and the adhesive strategy used to lute inlays and elevate the gingival margin. Therefore, the six experimental groups were: 1) Enamel + etch-and-rinse adhesive (ERA) Adper Scotchbond 1XT (SB1XT); 2) Dentin + SB1XT; 3) DME + SB1XT; 4) Enamel + self-etching adhesive (SEA) with enamel selective etching Clearfil SE Bond (CSE); 5) Dentin + CSE; 6) DME + CSE. Resin composite inlays were constructed (Gradia Indirect) and all luted with the same resin cement (RelyX ARC). Specimens were submitted to nanoleakage test. Results were analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests with Bonferroni correction (p<0.05).

Results

A perfect sealing ability was evidenced for experimental groups with gingival margins on enamel. Similar nanoleakage values were determined when CSE adhesive was applied regardless the gingival margin position. The highest silver nitrate infiltration was detected for elevated margins with the ERA SB1XT.

Conclusions

The SEA Clearfil SE Bond showed higher sealing ability than the ERA Adper Scotchbond 1XT when margins were located on dentin, regardless margin elevation. Gingival margins on enamel together with enamel acid etching provided an excellent sealing with both adhesive systems. Key words:Adhesion, composite inlays, gingival margin, deep margin elevation, marginal seal, nanoleakage test.

No correlation between two methodological approaches applied to evaluate cervical margin relocation

The study evaluated the quality of gingival margins created by cervical margin relocation (CMR) technique using different materials and assessed the consistency of the results obtained by two in vitro methods: microleakage test and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Mesio-occlusal-distal cavities with subgingival proximal margins were prepared. Mesial margins were elevated supragingivally with total-etch adhesive and flowable composite (Group 1) or with universal adhesive and bulk-fill flowable composite (Group 2). Distal margins were not elevated. Teeth were restored with CAD/CAM overlays. Marginal quality was evaluated by microleakage test and SEM observation of epoxy resin replicas. Statistical analyses showed no significant correlations between microleakage scores and percentage of marginal integrity observed under SEM at CMR margins, lower microleakage scores at margins without CMR compared to CMR margins, lower microleakage scores in Group 2 than in Group 1 and no difference in SEM integrity between groups at CMR margins.

Efficacy of Direct Restorative Materials in Proximal Box Elevation on the Margin Quality and Fracture Resistance of Molars Restored With CAD/CAM Onlays

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of four direct restorative materials that can be used in the proximal box elevation (PBE) technique.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Seventy-five molar teeth were randomly assigned to one of five groups (n=15): type II glass ionomer (GI), type II resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI), resin-based composite (RBC), bulk-fill (BF) resin-based composite, and a control with no box elevation procedure. Specimens were prepared for a standard mesio-occlusal-distal, computer-aided design/computer-aided manufactured (CAD-CAM) resin, nanoceramic onlay with mesial cervical margins located 1 mm above the cementoenamel junction (CEJ) and distal cervical margins located 2 mm below the CEJ. PBE was used to elevate the distal margins to 1 mm above the CEJ in all groups except the control group. For the control group the onlay margin was placed directly on the prepared distal tooth structure without PBE. A Lava Ultimate CAD/CAM resin, nanoceramic onlay restorative was manufactured and bonded on all specimens with RelyX Ultimate adhesive resin cement. The quality of the tooth-PBE material and PBE material-onlay interface was evaluated with scanning electron microscopy using epoxy resin replicas before and after cyclic loading (100,000 cycles, 1.2 Hz at 65N and 37°C). In addition to margin quality, the fracture resistance of each group was measured using a universal testing machine. Fracture pattern was recorded by visual examination. The Levene test for homogeneity and the Welch analysis of variance were completed for fracture resistance and margin quality. A χ² test was completed for break mode.

RESULTS

For dentin margins, a statistically significant difference was detected between the RMGI and control groups at baseline (p=0.0442). All other groups-GI, RBC, and BF-showed no difference from the control at baseline (p>0.05). No statistical significance was observed among groups for post-cyclic fatigue (p=0.8735). For onlay margins, no statistical significance was observed among groups for pre-cyclic fatigue, post-cyclic fatigue, or change (p=0.9713, p=0.528, p=0.4385, respectively). No significant difference was observed for the fracture resistance among groups or for the type of break by material used (p=0.1593, p=0.77, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Within the parameters of this study, after mechanical fatigue, the materials used for PBE: RMGI, RBC, and BF, did not influence results in terms of margin quality and fracture resistance. Therefore, collective findings suggest that these materials might be suitable for PBE procedures. Nevertheless, clinical caution is recommended with any PBE procedure and further testing of GI materials is needed.

Marginal sealing of relocated cervical margins of mesio-occluso-distal overlays

We investigated the effect of cervical marginal relocation (CMR) on marginal sealing with two different viscosity resin composites, before adhesive cementation of composite computer-aided design/computer-assisted manufacture mesio-occluso-distal (MOD) overlays. Standardized MOD cavities prepared in 39 human molars were randomly assigned to three groups. The proximal margins on the mesial side were located 1 mm below the cementoenamel junction. On the distal side of the tooth, the margins were located 1 mm above the cementoenamel junction. In Groups 1 and 2, mesial proximal boxes were elevated with a hybrid composite (GC Essentia MD) and a flowable composite (GC G-ænial Universal Flo), respectively. CMR was not performed in Group 3. The overlays were adhesively cemented, and interfacial leakage was quantified by scoring the depth of silver nitrate penetration along the adhesive interfaces. Leakage score at the dentin-CMR composite interface did not significantly differ between the two tested composites but was significantly lower for Group 3. In all groups, scores were significantly higher at the dentin interface than at the enamel interface. These results indicate that the performance of flowable and microhybrid resin composites, as indicated by marginal sealing ability, is comparable for CMR.

Cervical margin relocation in indirect adhesive restorations: A literature review

PURPOSE

The aim of this review was to summarize the existing scientific literature investigating on cervical margin relocation technique (CMR) performed prior to the adhesive cementation of the indirect restorations.

STUDY SELECTION

An electronic search with no date restriction was conducted in the MEDLINE database, accessed through PubMed. The following main keywords were used: "cervical margin relocation", "coronal margin relocation", "deep margin elevation" and "proximal box elevation".

RESULTS

Seven in vitro studies and 5 clinical reports investigating on CMR are taken into consideration for the present review. The most frequently investigated parameter in almost all of the in vitro studies was the marginal adaptation of the indirect restorations. One study additionally assessed the influence of CMR on the fracture behavior of the restored teeth and one study assessed the bond strength of the indirect composite restoration to the proximal box floor. Clinical reports provided documentation with a detailed description of the treatment protocol. In the current literature no randomized controlled clinical trials or prospective or retrospective clinical studies on CMR technique could be found.

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of the reviewed literature, it can be concluded that currently there is no strong scientific evidence that could either support or discourage the use of CMR technique prior to restoration of deep subgingival defects with indirect adhesive restorations. Randomized controlled clinical trials are necessary to provide the reliable evidence on the influence of CMR technique on the clinical performance, especially on the longevity of the restorations and the periodontal health.