Barqawi Laith, Kanot Shaza
Department of Fixed Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Damascus University, Damascus, SYR.
Cureus. 2024 Jun 29;16(6):e63455. doi: 10.7759/cureus.63455. eCollection 2024 Jun.
This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) and urethane dimethacrylate (UDMA) as materials for fixed provisional restorations, focusing on handling properties, chair time, and periodontal outcomes, due to their prevalent use in dental practice.
A comparative clinical study was conducted with 150 patients at the Department of Fixed Prosthodontics, Damascus University, Damascus, Syria. Patients undergoing prosthetic treatments with crowns and bridges received two fixed provisional restorations using a direct approach. The first, made immediately after abutment preparation, used PMMA. The second, created post-clinical try-in of the final restoration, utilized UDMA. Both restorations were maintained for one week. We assessed chair time, handling properties via the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and periodontal health using the Plaque Index and Gingival Index. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to assess data normality. Differences between the two groups in the outcome variables were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test. The level of significance was set at (P < 0.05).
The handling properties of chemically activated PMMA resin were superior to those of light-activated UDMA resin. However, UDMA resin outperformed in terms of chair time and periodontal outcomes. The mean chair time was 9.45 ± 1.01 minutes for PMMA and 4.40 ± 0.77 minutes for UDMA. Mild gingivitis or plaque accumulation was observed in 57.3% of PMMA restorations and 44.0% of UDMA restorations. Moderate gingivitis and plaque accumulation were noted in 42.7% of PMMA restorations, while 56.0% of UDMA restorations showed no plaque accumulation or gingival inflammation.
Chemically activated PMMA resin offers excellent handling properties, whereas light-activated UDMA resin provides advantages in chair time and periodontal health, making it a preferable choice for provisional restorations. Limitations and future research: The study was limited to short-term outcomes and did not assess the long-term durability of the restorations or their aesthetic impact on patient satisfaction. Further studies are recommended to evaluate the long-term performance of these materials, their cost-effectiveness, and their aesthetic outcomes to provide a more comprehensive understanding of their clinical utility.
本研究旨在比较聚甲基丙烯酸甲酯（PMMA）和二甲基丙烯酸聚氨酯（UDMA）作为固定临时修复材料的临床效果，重点关注操作性能、椅旁时间和牙周状况，因为它们在牙科实践中广泛应用。
在叙利亚大马士革大学固定修复科对150例患者进行了一项对比临床研究。接受冠桥修复治疗的患者采用直接法接受两个固定临时修复体。第一个在基牙预备后立即制作，使用PMMA。第二个在最终修复体临床试戴后制作，使用UDMA。两个修复体均保留一周。我们评估了椅旁时间、通过视觉模拟量表（VAS）评估操作性能，以及使用菌斑指数和牙龈指数评估牙周健康状况。采用Kolmogorov-Smirnov检验评估数据正态性。使用Mann-Whitney U检验分析两组在结果变量上的差异。显著性水平设定为（P < 0.05）。
化学活化PMMA树脂的操作性能优于光活化UDMA树脂。然而，UDMA树脂在椅旁时间和牙周状况方面表现更优。PMMA的平均椅旁时间为9.45 ± 1.01分钟，UDMA为4.40 ± 0.77分钟。57.3%的PMMA修复体出现轻度牙龈炎或菌斑堆积，44.0%的UDMA修复体出现此类情况。42.7%的PMMA修复体出现中度牙龈炎和菌斑堆积，而56.0%的UDMA修复体未出现菌斑堆积或牙龈炎症。
化学活化PMMA树脂具有出色的操作性能，而光活化UDMA树脂在椅旁时间和牙周健康方面具有优势，使其成为临时修复的更优选择。局限性与未来研究：本研究仅限于短期结果，未评估修复体的长期耐久性或其对患者满意度的美学影响。建议进一步开展研究以评估这些材料的长期性能、成本效益和美学效果，以便更全面地了解其临床效用。
