RESUMEN
With provisional restorations, properties such as flexural strength play a key role in maintaining the abutment teeth in position over the interim period until the final restorations are placed. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the flexural strength of four commonly used provisional resin materials. Ten identical 25 × 2 × 2 mm specimens were made from four different groups of provisional resin material, namely 1: SR Ivocron (Ivoclar Vivadent) cold-polymerized poly-methyl methacrylate (PMMA), 2: S Ivocron (Ivoclar Vivadent) heat-polymerized PMMA, 3: Protemp (3M Germany-ESPE) auto-polymerized bis-acryl composite, and 4: Revotek LC (GC Corp, Tokyo) light-polymerized urethane dimethacrylate resin. The mean values of the flexural strength of each group were calculated and the data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey post hoc tests. The mean values (MPa) were as follows: for cold-polymerized PMMA, it was 125.90 MPa; for heat-polymerized PMMA, it was 140.00 MPa, with auto-polymerized bis-acryl composite 133.00 MPa; and for light-polymerized urethane dimethacrylate resin, it was 80.84 MPa. Thus, the highest flexural strength was recorded with heat-polymerized PMMA and the lowest flexural strength with light-polymerized urethane dimethacrylate resin, which was significantly low. The study did not detect a significant difference in the flexural strengths of cold PMMA, hot PMMA, and auto bis-acryl composite.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Provisional restoration is an analytical component of fixed prosthodontics serving as a ground plan for the design of fixed dental prosthesis. Flexural strength is critical in case of long standing fixed dental prosthesis, to appreciate success of full mouth rehabilitation cases and temporomandibular joint dysfunction therapies. AIM: The present study was to evaluate the flexural strength of different provisional restorative resins used for prosthetic rehabilitation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty identical samples (n=10 for each material) measuring 25mm×2mm×2mm according to ADA/ANSI specification no. 27 were fabricated using autopolymerizing Poly Methyl Methacrylate (PMMA) (Group A); heat activated PMMA (Group B); autopolymerizing Bis-GMA composite resin (Group C) and light activated Urethane Dimethacrylate Resin (UDMA) (Group D). For 14 days all these samples were stored in artificial saliva. Ten samples from each material were subjected to thermal cycling for 2500 cycles (5°C to 55°C). Later, a standard three point bending test was conducted on all the specimens with a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 0.75mm/min. Statistical analysis used included Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: The mean flexural strength of specimens confirmed higher flexural strength for Group C (102.98 Mpa) followed by Group B (91.86 Mpa), Group A (79.13 Mpa) and Group D (60.01 Mpa). There were significant differences between any two materials tested (p <0.05). Comparison between mean flexural strength values between four groups revealed significant difference between the interim materials (p <0.05). CONCLUSION: The greatest flexural strength was observed for Bis-GMA composite resins followed by heat cure methacrylate resins, autopolymerizing methacrylate resins and was least for light cure resins. While fabricating provisional restorations, these greater values should be considered for better outcome of the treatment.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Marginal discrepancy severely affects the long term success of All ceramic complete veneer crowns. The precise role of resin luting agents influencing this phenomenon needs to be explored further. AIM: To estimate and compare the marginal discrepancy in CAD/CAM processed All ceramic complete veneer crowns prior and following luting with resin bonded luting agents. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Extracted human maxillary first premolars were randomly allocated into four groups of 27 samples each Viz., Group I-Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cement (GIC) (RelyX), Group II-Bis-GMA based dual cure resin cement (Variolink II), Group III-PMMA based resin cement (Superbond), Group IV- Urethane Dimethacrylate resin cement (Calibra). Following tooth preparation, CAD/CAM All ceramic complete veneer crowns were fabricated and sectioned and marginal discrepancy was evaluated using a scanning electron microscope (TESCAN, Magnification power-1,00,000x) prior and after luting with the experimental resin cements. RESULTS: The vertical and horizontal discrepancy before and after cementation with Group I [270.08±103.10µm, 165.3±53.00µm and 270.86±102.70µm, 166.62±54.96µm respectively]; Group II [254.21±79.20µm, 117.75±24.29µm and 234.81±79µm, 116.89±18.22µm respectively]; Group III [272.47±86.25µm, 142.08±50.83µm and 251.82±62.69µm, 136.07±44.95µm respectively]; Group IV were [260.28±64.81µm, 116.98±17.71µm and 233.08±69.44µm, 116.58±21.13µm respectively]. ANOVA inferred a statistically significant difference between the four test specimen with regards to vertical and horizontal marginal discrepancy after cementation (F=9.092, p<0.001), (F=10.97, p<0.001). Tukey HSD Post-hoc test observed significant differences in vertical and horizontal marginal discrepancies between the resin modified glass ionomer and resin cements (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: Resin cements exhibited a greater reduction in the marginal discrepancy than the resin modified glass ionomer following luting in All ceramic complete veneer crowns. Hence resin cements are more preferable to GIC for luting All ceramic complete veneer crowns.