J Adv Prosthodont.  2015 Feb;7(1):27-31. 10.4047/jap.2015.7.1.27.

In vitro study of fracture strength of provisional crown materials

• Karaokutan I
• Sayin G
• Kara O

• KMID: 1974887
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2015.7.1.27

Abstract

PURPOSE
The purpose of this report was to evaluate the effect of the fabrication method and material type on the fracture strength of provisional crowns.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A master model with one crown (maxillary left second premolar) was manufactured from Cr-Co alloy. The master model was scanned, and the data set was transferred to a CAD/CAM unit (Yenamak D50, Yenadent Ltd, Istanbul, Turkey) for the Cercon Base group. For the other groups, temporary crowns were produced by direct fabrication methods (Imident, Temdent, Structur Premium, Takilon, Systemp c&b II, and Acrytemp). The specimens were subjected to water storage at 37degrees C for 24 hours, and then they were thermocycled (TC, 5000x, 5-55degrees C) (n=10). The maximum force at fracture (Fmax) was measured in a universal test machine at 1 mm/min. Data was analyzed by non-parametric statistics (alpha=.05).
RESULTS
Fmax values varied between 711.09-1392.1 N. In the PMMA groups, Takilon showed the lowest values (711.09 N), and Cercon Base showed the highest values (959.59 N). In the composite groups, Structur Premium showed the highest values (1392.1 N), and Acrytemp showed the lowest values (910.05 N). The composite groups showed significantly higher values than the PMMA groups (P=.01).
CONCLUSION
Composite-based materials showed significantly higher fracture strengths than PMMA-based materials. The CAD-CAM technique offers more advantages than the direct technique.

Keyword

Temporary crown; Provisional restoration; Composite; Methyl methacrylate; Fracture strength, CAD-CAM

MeSH Terms

Alloys
Computer-Aided Design
Crowns*
Dataset
Polymethyl Methacrylate
Water
Alloys
Polymethyl Methacrylate
Water

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Descriptive analyses of materials.

Reference

1. Shillingburg HT, Sumiya H, Lowell DW, Jacobi R, Brackett SE. Fundamentals of fixed prosthodontics. 3. Auflage. Chicago: Quintessence;1997.

2. Burns DR, Beck DA, Nelson SK. Committee on Research in Fixed Prosthodontics of the Academy of Fixed Prosthodontics. A review of selected dental literature on contemporary provisional fixed prosthodontic treatment: report of the Committee on Research in Fixed Prosthodontics of the Academy of Fixed Prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent. 2003; 90:474–497.

3. Gough M. A review of temporary crowns and bridges. Dent Update. 1994; 21:203–207.

4. Anusavice KJ. Phillips' science of dental materials. 10th ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders;1996. p. 285–431.

5. Gegauff AG, Holloway JA, Rosenstiel SF, Land MF, Fujimoto J. Contemporary fixed prosthodontics. 3rd ed. Mosby: St. Louis;2001. p. 380–416.

6. Kim SH, Watts DC. In vitro study of edge-strength of provisional polymer-based crown and fixed partial denture materials. Dent Mater. 2007; 23:1570–1573.

7. Burke FJ, Murray MC, Shortall AC. Trends in indirect dentistry: 6. Provisional restorations, more than just a temporary. Dent Update. 2005; 32:443–444. 447–448. 450–452.

8. Rosentritt M, Behr M, Lang R, Handel G. Flexural properties of prosthetic provisional polymers. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2004; 12:75–79.

9. Koumjian JH, Nimmo A. Evaluation of fracture resistance of resins used for provisional restorations. J Prosthet Dent. 1990; 64:654–657.

10. Young HM, Smith CT, Morton D. Comparative in vitro evaluation of two provisional restorative materials. J Prosthet Dent. 2001; 85:129–132.

11. Diaz-Arnold AM, Dunne JT, Jones AH. Microhardness of provisional fixed prosthodontic materials. J Prosthet Dent. 1999; 82:525–528.

12. Ireland MF, Dixon DL, Breeding LC, Ramp MH. In vitro mechanical property comparison of four resins used for fabrication of provisional fixed restorations. J Prosthet Dent. 1998; 80:158–162.

13. Osman YI, Owen CP. Flexural strength of provisional restorative materials. J Prosthet Dent. 1993; 70:94–96.

14. Wang RL, Moore BK, Goodacre CJ, Swartz ML, Andres CJ. A comparison of resins for fabricating provisional fixed restorations. Int J Prosthodont. 1989; 2:173–184.

15. Balkenhol M, Ferger P, Mautner MC, Wöstmann B. Provisional crown and fixed partial denture materials: mechanical properties and degree of conversion. Dent Mater. 2007; 23:1574–1583.

16. McLean JW. The failed restoration: causes of failure and how to prevent them. Int Dent J. 1990; 40:354–358.

17. Balkenhol M, Knapp M, Ferger P, Heun U, Wöstmann B. Correlation between polymerization shrinkage and marginal fit of temporary crowns. Dent Mater. 2008; 24:1575–1584.

18. Gougaloff R, Stalley FC. Immediate placement and provisionalization of a dental implant utilizing the CEREC 3 CAD/CAM Protocol: a clinical case report. J Calif Dent Assoc. 2010; 38:170–173. 176–177.

19. Poticny DJ, Klim J. CAD/CAM in-office technology: innovations after 25 years for predictable, esthetic outcomes. J Am Dent Assoc. 2010; 141:5S–9S.

20. Ozcan M, Nijhuis H, Valandro LF. Effect of various surface conditioning methods on the adhesion of dual-cure resin cement with MDP functional monomer to zirconia after thermal aging. Dent Mater J. 2008; 27:99–104.

21. Pisani-Proenca J, Erhardt MC, Valandro LF, Gutierrez-Aceves G, Bolanos-Carmona MV, Del Castillo-Salmeron R, Bottino MA. Influence of ceramic surface conditioning and resin cements on microtensile bond strength to a glass ceramic. J Prosthet Dent. 2006; 96:412–417.

22. Alt V, Hannig M, Wöstmann B, Balkenhol M. Fracture strength of temporary fixed partial dentures: CAD/CAM versus directly fabricated restorations. Dent Mater. 2011; 27:339–347.

23. Balkenhol M, Meyer M, Michel K, Ferger P, Wöstmann B. Effect of surface condition and storage time on the repairability of temporary crown and fixed partial denture materials. J Dent. 2008; 36:861–872.

24. Balkenhol M, Mautner MC, Ferger P, Wöstmann B. Mechanical properties of provisional crown and bridge materials: chemical-curing versus dual-curing systems. J Dent. 2008; 36:15–20.

25. Kerby RE, Knobloch LA, Sharples S, Peregrina A. Mechanical properties of urethane and bis-acryl interim resin materials. J Prosthet Dent. 2013; 110:21–28.

26. Knobloch LA, Kerby RE, Pulido T, Johnston WM. Relative fracture toughness of bis-acryl interim resin materials. J Prosthet Dent. 2011; 106:118–125.

27. Cheng CJ, Lin CL, Shan YF. Multifactorial analysis of variables influencing the fracture strength of repair joints for provisional restorative materials using the statistically based Taguchi method. J Dent Sci. 2010; 5:90–99.

28. Nejatidanesh F, Momeni G, Savabi O. Flexural strength of interim resin materials for fixed prosthodontics. J Prosthodont. 2009; 18:507–511.

29. Lang R, Rosentritt M, Behr M, Handel G. Fracture resistance of PMMA and resin matrix composite-based interim FPD materials. Int J Prosthodont. 2003; 16:381–384.

30. Pihut M, Wisniewska G, Majewski P, Gronkiewicz K, Majewski S. Measurement of occlusal forces in the therapy of functional disorders with the use of botulinum toxin type A. J Physiol Pharmacol. 2009; 60:113–116.

31. Tortopidis D, Lyons MF, Baxendale RH, Gilmour WH. The variability of bite force measurement between sessions, in different positions within the dental arch. J Oral Rehabil. 1998; 25:681–686.