A Comparative Clinical Performance of Polymethyl Methacrylate (PMMA) and Urethane Dimethacrylate (UDMA) Materials in Provisional Fixed Prostheses.

AIM

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.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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).

RESULTS

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.

CONCLUSION

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.