
Current issue
Archive
Manuscripts accepted
About the journal
Editorial board
Reviewers
Abstracting and indexing
Subscription
Contact
Instructions for authors
Ethical standards and procedures
Editorial System
Submit your Manuscript
|
2/2025
vol. 78 abstract:
Original paper
The impact of cervical margin relocation on periodontal health using flowable resin composite and resin-modified glass ionomer: a one-year clinical trial
Nabil Abd Al-Hameed Al-Aggan
1, 2
,
Sameh Mahamoud Nabih
1
,
Ali Shyaa Al-Saadi
3, 4
,
Abd-Allah Ahmed Abd-Elhady
1
,
Riad Al-Taee
5
,
Bahaa Al-Bakhakh
2
,
Abdel-Latif Galal Borhamy
6, 7
,
Ahmed Gamal El-Din Nafady
8
,
Mohamed Ahmed Wakwak
1
,
Eslam Hassan Gabr
1
J Stoma 2025; 78, 2: 83-92
Online publish date: 2025/05/20
View
full text
Get citation
ENW EndNote
BIB JabRef, Mendeley
RIS Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero
AMA
APA
Chicago
Harvard
MLA
Vancouver
Introduction:
Large cavities can be successfully restored using minimally invasive direct restoration techniques, but deep proximal caries below the cemento-enamel junction require complex treatment methods. Objectives: Comparative evaluation of the impact of cervical margin relocation (CMR) on periodontal health using flowable resin composite and resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI) over a one year of clinical follow-up. Material and methods: A total of (n = 42) participants were enrolled in the study. Every participant had at least one proximal caries affecting permanent molar teeth below the cemento-enamel junction. Forty-two proximal defects were randomly assigned into two equivalent primary groups (n = 21) according to the type of restoration utilized for CMR: group 1 – micro-hybrid flowable resin composite (Dynamic Flow), and group 2 – RMGI (Riva Light Cure). Gingival index for each group was evaluated with visual inspection and probing. Mesial, distal, facial, and lingual surfaces were assessed using periodontal probe at baseline (one week), six months, and one year post-treatment. Results: Each group showed statistically non-significant difference in gingival index scores between 6 months and one year. However, in both the groups, there were statistically significant variations between baseline and 6 months as well as baseline and one year. Moreover, the difference between both the groups at all time intervals was non-significant. Conclusions: The cervical margin relocation technique appears appropriately accepted by periodontal health, resulting in little or no clinical signs of inflammation. Both micro-hybrid flowable resin composite and RMGI may be effective for cervical margin relocation procedures in terms of their one-year effects on periodontal health. keywords:
cervical margin relocation, gingival index, periodontal health, micro-hybrid flowable resin composite, resin-modified glass ionomer |