Does providing “Compromised treatment” equate to “Compromised care” or could it be considered “Appropriatech”?

Abstract

Teeth are sensory structures that play a part in many different aspects of a patient’s life, including mastication, speech, smiling and aesthetics. As such they can affect both their functional and psychosocial wellbeing and quality of life. Unfortunately, these vital components can be lost due to caries, periodontal disease, dental trauma or iatrogenic damage. Dental practitioners should aim to provide treatment that will save and/or restore compromised or diseased teeth whenever possible. This may include direct or indirect restorations, endodontics, periodontal therapy and even reimplantation or autotransplantation in specific cases.1 Despite the wide range of treatment possibilities, oral rehabilitation is often not available, accessible or affordable to all patients.2 To try to “provide treatment for the many”, cost-effective procedures may need to be considered. However, this cost-cutting cannot be achieved by “ignoring sound prosthodontic principles” and needs to have some form of quality control.2 This paper will give a brief review of the controversial cervical margin relocation technique. It will then use this as an example for how a clinician can debate whether the provision of “compromised treatment” equates to inferior care, or if it could be considered appropriate for the given situation. They need to also ensure that the chosen treatment is safe, adheres to evidence-based principles and still provides quality of care.