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).
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.
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.
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
Burns DR, Beck DA, Nelson SK (2003) 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 90(5):474–497. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022391303002592
Perry RD, Magnuson B (2012) Provisional materials: key components of interim fixed restorations. Compend Contin Educ Dent 33(1):59
Patras M, Naka O, Doukoudakis S et al (2012) Management of provisional restorations’ deficiencies: a literature review. J Esthet Restor Dent 24(1):26–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8240.2011.00467.x
Kerby RE, Knobloch LA, Sharples S, Peregrina A (2013) Mechanical properties of urethane and bis-acryl interim resin materials. J Prosthet Dent 110(1):21–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60334-0
Hahnel S, Krifka S, Behr M, Kolbeck C, Lang R, Rosentritt M (2019) Performance of resin materials for temporary fixed denture prostheses. J Oral Sci 61:270–275. https://doi.org/10.2334/josnusd.18-0150
Luthardt RG, Stossel M, Hinz M et al (2000) Clinical performance and periodontal outcome of temporary crowns and fixed partial dentures: a randomized clinical trial. J Prosthet Dent 83(1):32–39
Abdullah AO, Tsitrou EA, Pollington S (2016) Comparative in vitro evaluation of CAD/CAM vs conventional provisional crowns. J Appl Oral Sci 24(3):258–263. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-775720150451
Abdullah AO, Pollington S, Liu Y (2018) Comparison between direct chairside and digitally fabricated temporary crowns. Dent Mater J 37(6):957–963. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2017-315
Karaokutan I, Sayin G, Kara O (2015) In vitro study of fracture strength of provisional crown materials. J Adv Prosthodont 7(1):27–31. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2015.7.1.27
Abdulmohsen B, Parker S, Braden M, Patel MP (2016) A study to investigate and compare the physicomechanical properties of experimental and commercial temporary crown and bridge materials. Dent Mater 32(2):200–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2015.11.025
Pott P-C, Schmitz-Wätjen H, Stiesch M, Eisenburger M (2017) Influence of the material for preformed moulds on the polymerization temperature of resin materials for temporary FPDs. J Adv Prosthodont 9(4):294–301. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2017.9.4.294
Rosentritt M, Behr M, Lang R et al (2004) Flexural properties of prosthetic provisional polymers. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 12(2):75–79
Rosentritt M, Siavikis G, Behr M, Kolbeck C, Handel G (2008) Approach for valuating the significance of laboratory simulation. J Dent 36(12):1048–1053. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2008.09.001
Rosentritt M, Behr M, Scharnagl P, Handel G, Kolbeck C (2011) Influence of resilient support of abutment teeth on fracture resistance of all-ceramic fixed partial dentures: an in vitro study. Int J Prosthodont 24(5):465–468
SANNINO G, GERMANO F, ARCURI L et al (2014) CEREC CAD/CAM chairside system. Oral Implantol (Rome) 7(3):57–70
Alt V, Hannig M, Wostmann B et al (2011) Fracture strength of temporary fixed partial dentures: CAD/CAM versus directly fabricated restorations. Dent Mater 27(4):339–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2010.11.012
Varga S, Spalj S, Lapter Varga M, Anic Milosevic S, Mestrovic S, Slaj M (2011) Maximum voluntary molar bite force in subjects with normal occlusion. Eur J Orthod 33(4):427–433. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjq097
Peñate L, Basilio J, Roig M, Mercadé M (2015) Comparative study of interim materials for direct fixed dental prostheses and their fabrication with CAD/CAM technique. J Prosthet Dent 114(2):248–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.12.023
Heintze SD, Reichl F-X, Hickel R (2019) Wear of dental materials: clinical significance and laboratory wear simulation methods -a review. Dent Mater J 38:343–353. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2018-140
Lambrechts P, Braem M, Vuylsteke-Wauters M, Vanherle G (1989) Quantitative in vivo wear of human enamel. J Dent Res 68(12):1752–1754. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345890680120601
Heintze S (2019) Predictability of clinical wear by laboratory wear methods for the evaluation of dental restorative materials
Barsby MJ (1992) A denture base resin with low water absorption. J Dent 1992(20):240–244
Santos C, Clarke RL, Braden M, Guitian F, Davy KWM (2002) Water absorption characteristics of dental composites incorporating hydroxyapatite filler. Biomaterials 23(8):1897–1904. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-9612(01)00331-3
Braden, M: Clarke, RL, Nicholson J, Parker S (1997) Polymeric dental materials. Macromolecular Systems - Materials Approach: 51–90., Berlin, Heidelberg, Springer
Buergers R, Rosentritt M, Handel G (2007) Bacterial adhesion of Streptococcus mutans to provisional fixed prosthodontic material. J Prosthet Dent 98(6):461–469. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(07)60146-2
Hancock BC, Zografi G (1994) The relationship between the glass transition temperature and the water content of amorphous pharmaceutical solids. Pharm Res 1994:471–477
Lang R, Rosentritt M, Behr M et al (2003) Fracture resistance of PMMA and resin matrix composite-based interim FPD materials. Int J Prosthodont 16(4):381–384
We would like to thank the Ivoclar Vivadent for providing the materials.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Sari, T., Usumez, A., Strasser, T. et al. Temporary materials: comparison of in vivo and in vitro performance. Clin Oral Invest (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-020-03278-5
- Temporary materials
- Provisional materials
- In vitro testing
- In vivo investigation
- Fracture force