Sokhal Kartik, Kumar Sandeep, Aggarwal Rajnish, Kaur Iqbal, Thoidingjam Bhavna, Deokate Aniruddha, Nandalur Kulashekar R
Department of Prosthodontics, Surendera Dental College and Research Institute, Sri Ganganagar, IND.
Department of Prosthetic Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Jazan University, Jazan, SAU.
Cureus. 2025 Apr 30;17(4):e83269. doi: 10.7759/cureus.83269. eCollection 2025 Apr.
Provisional restorations are essential components of fixed prosthodontic treatment that provide protection, function, esthetics, and guidance during the transitional phase before definitive restorations are placed. The choice of materials for provisional restorations plays a critical role in determining their clinical effectiveness and durability. Among the numerous available materials, bis-acryl composite resins and polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA)-based acrylics are widely used. Surface hardness is a key mechanical property that directly affects a material's resistance to masticatory forces, wear, and deformation during function. This in vitro study was conducted to compare the surface hardness of three bis-acryl composite materials with that of one PMMA-based material to aid clinicians in selecting the most suitable material based on the performance characteristics.
This in vitro study was conducted in the Department of Prosthodontics. Group 1 (n=40) used 3M Protemp 4 Temporization Material (St. Paul, MN: 3M ESPE AG), group 2 (n=40) used Dentsply Integrity Temporary Crown and Bridge Material (York, PA: Dentsply Sirona), group 3 (n=40) used Vericom Care C&B Dual-Cure Temporary Material (Anyang, South Korea: Vericom Co. Ltd.), and group 4 (n=40) used Pyrax High-Quality Cold Cure SC-10 (Roorkee, India: Pyrax Polymars). The specimens were prepared using stainless-steel molds. Each material was manipulated according to the manufacturer's instructions and cured according to recommended protocols. Vickers hardness testing was performed under a 25 g load for 15 s. Two indentations were made per specimen, and the Vickers Hardness Number (VHN) was calculated. The data were then subjected to statistical analysis.
Group 1 recorded the highest mean hardness (20.54±0.69 VHN), followed by group 2 with 19.80±0.47 VHN, group 3 with 18.55±1.36 VHN, and group 4 showing the lowest hardness (16.65±0.66 VHN). One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) revealed statistically significant differences between all groups (p<0.01), with group 1 exhibiting the highest hardness across pairwise comparisons.
Bis-acryl composite materials demonstrated a significantly higher surface hardness than PMMA-based materials. 3M Protemp 4 showed the greatest hardness and may be best suited for long-term provisional restorations, whereas Pyrax SC-10 is more appropriate for short-term use owing to its lower mechanical strength.
临时修复体是固定义齿修复治疗的重要组成部分，在最终修复体就位前的过渡阶段提供保护、功能、美观和引导作用。临时修复体材料的选择对其临床效果和耐久性起着关键作用。在众多可用材料中，双丙烯酸复合树脂和聚甲基丙烯酸甲酯（PMMA）基丙烯酸材料被广泛使用。表面硬度是一项关键的力学性能，直接影响材料在功能过程中抵抗咀嚼力、磨损和变形的能力。本体外研究旨在比较三种双丙烯酸复合材料与一种PMMA基材料的表面硬度，以帮助临床医生根据性能特征选择最合适的材料。
本体外研究在口腔修复科进行。第1组（n = 40）使用3M Protemp 4临时修复材料（明尼苏达州圣保罗：3M ESPE AG），第2组（n = 40）使用登士柏Integrity临时冠桥材料（宾夕法尼亚州约克：登士柏西诺德），第3组（n = 40）使用Vericom Care C&B双固化临时材料（韩国安阳：Vericom有限公司），第4组（n = 40）使用Pyrax高品质冷固化SC - 10（印度鲁尔基：Pyrax Polymars）。标本使用不锈钢模具制备。每种材料按照制造商的说明进行操作，并根据推荐方案固化。在25 g载荷下进行15 s的维氏硬度测试。每个标本制作两个压痕，并计算维氏硬度值（VHN）。然后对数据进行统计分析。
第1组记录的平均硬度最高（20.54±0.69 VHN），其次是第2组，为19.80±0.47 VHN，第3组为18.55±1.36 VHN，第4组硬度最低（16.65±0.66 VHN）。单因素方差分析（ANOVA）显示所有组之间存在统计学显著差异（p<0.01），在两两比较中第1组硬度最高。
双丙烯酸复合材料的表面硬度明显高于PMMA基材料。3M Protemp 4显示出最大硬度，可能最适合长期临时修复，而Pyrax SC - 10由于其较低的机械强度更适合短期使用。
