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

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.