Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Nov;24(11):4061-4068.
doi: 10.1007/s00784-020-03278-5. Epub 2020 Jun 24.

Temporary materials: comparison of in vivo and in vitro performance

Tuğrul Sari  1 , Aslihan Usumez  2 , Thomas Strasser  3 , Abdurrahman Şahinbas  4 , Martin Rosentritt  5
Affiliations

Temporary materials: comparison of in vivo and in vitro performance

Tuğrul Sari et al. Clin Oral Investig. 2020 Nov.

Erratum in

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this investigation was to compare clinical performance and in vitro wear of temporary CAD/CAM and cartridge crowns. This study is an approach to estimate the influence of in vivo use and laboratory simulation on temporary crowns.

Materials and methods: A total of 90 crowns were fabricated from each temporary CAD/CAM or cartridge material. Also, 10 crowns of each material were clinically applied for 14 days, and 80 identical duplicate restorations were investigated in the laboratory after storage in water (14 days; 37 °C) and subsequent thermal cycling and mechanical loading (TCML, 240.000 × 50N ML, 600 × 5°C/55 °C). After in vivo application or in vitro aging, facture force, superficial wear (mean and maximum), surface roughness (Ra, Rz), thermal weight loss (TGA), and heat of reaction (DSC) were determined for all crowns.

Statistics: Bonferroni post hoc test; one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA); α = 0.05).

Results: The fracture resistance of the temporary materials varied between 1196.4 (CAD in vivo) and 1598.3 N (cartridge crown in vitro). Mean (maximum) wear data between 204.7 (386.7 μm; cartridge in vitro) and 353.0 μm (621.8 μm; CAD in vitro) were found. Ra values ranged between 4.4 and 4.9 μm and Rz values between 36.0 and 40.8 μm. DSC and TG analysis revealed small differences between the materials but a strong influence of the aging process.

Conclusions: Comparison of in vivo and in vitro aging led to no significant differences in fracture force and wear but differences in roughness, DSC, and TGA. SEM evaluation confirmed comparability. Comparison of CAD/CAM and cartridge temporary materials partially showed significant differences.

Clinical relevance: In vitro aging methods might be helpful to estimate materials' properties before principal clinical application. CAD/CAM and cartridge temporary materials provided comparable good clinical performance.

Keywords: Fracture force; In vitro testing; In vivo investigation; Provisional materials; Roughness; TCML; Temporary materials; Wear.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Fracture force [N] of crown materials (CAD/CAM and cartridge) under in vivo or in vitro conditions
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Scanning electron microscopy (SEM, magnification × 200–500, 10 KV, vacuum mode) comparison of wear at contact areas of randomly chosen CAD/CAM and cartridge crowns after in vitro testing and in vivo application
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
DSC heat flow [mw/MG] (comparison between CAD/CAM and cartridge system; baseline, in vivo, in vitro)
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Weight loss [%] with thermal gravimetry (TG, comparison between CAD/CAM and cartridge system (baseline, in vivo, in vitro))
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Burns DR, Beck DA, Nelson SK. 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(5):474–497. doi: 10.1016/S0022391303002592. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Perry RD, Magnuson B. Provisional materials: key components of interim fixed restorations. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2012;33(1):59. - PubMed
    1. Patras M, Naka O, Doukoudakis S, et al. Management of provisional restorations’ deficiencies: a literature review. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2012;24(1):26–38. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8240.2011.00467.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kerby RE, Knobloch LA, Sharples S, Peregrina A. Mechanical properties of urethane and bis-acryl interim resin materials. J Prosthet Dent. 2013;110(1):21–28. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60334-0. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hahnel S, Krifka S, Behr M, Kolbeck C, Lang R, Rosentritt M. Performance of resin materials for temporary fixed denture prostheses. J Oral Sci. 2019;61:270–275. doi: 10.2334/josnusd.18-0150. - DOI - PubMed

Substances

LinkOut - more resources