Comparative in vitro evaluation of two provisional restorative materials.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Provisional crowns traditionally have been associated with problems such as poor occlusion, contour, fit, and finish. Fabrication procedures should be uncomplicated and predictable within a realistic time frame.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare the quality of provisional restorations fabricated by dental students from 2 different materials (bis-acryl composite resin and PMMA) and identify the advantages and disadvantages associated with each material.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This study evaluated the occlusion, contour, marginal adaptation, and finish of 222 provisional crowns fabricated by 2 groups (A and B) of dental students. One bis-acryl composite resin material (Integrity) and 2 PMMA resins (C&B Resin and Snap) were evaluated.

RESULTS

For group A, Integrity was statistically superior (P<.05) to C&B Resin in all 4 categories for anterior provisional crowns. For posterior provisional crowns, Integrity proved superior in the categories of contour and marginal adaptation, but no significant differences were established for occlusion and finish. For group B, Integrity was statistically superior to Snap in the categories of occlusion, contour, and marginal adaptation, whereas there was no statistical difference in finish. When all 4 categories were analyzed, Integrity was found to be statistically superior.

CONCLUSION

Bis-acryl composite resin (Integrity) was significantly superior to PMMA (C&B Resin and Snap) as a provisional restorative material.