PURPOSE: The objectives of this study were to evaluate the fracture strength and fracture patterns of provisional crowns fabricated from different materials and techniques after receiving stress from a simulated oral condition. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A monomethacrylate-based resin (Unifast Trad) and a bis-acryl-based (Protemp 4) resin were used to fabricate provisional crowns using conventional direct technique. A milled monomethacrylate resin (Brylic Solid) and a 3D-printed bis-acrylate resin (Freeprint Temp) were chosen to fabricate provisional crowns using the CAD/CAM process. All cemented provisional crowns (n=10/group) were subjected to thermal cycling (5,000 cycles at 5°-55℃) and cyclic occlusal load (100 N at 4 Hz for 100,000 cycles). Maximum force at fracture was tested using a universal testing machine. No statistically significant difference was noted among other groups. For failure pattern analysis, Unifast Trad and Brylic Solid showed less damage than Protemp 4 and Freeprint Temp groups. CONCLUSION: Provisional crowns fabricated using the CAD/CAM process and the conventionally fabricated bis-acryl resins exhibited significant higher fracture strength compared to conventionally fabricated monomethacrylate resins after the aging regimen. Therefore, CAD/CAM milling and 3D printing of provisional restorations may be good alternatives for long term provisionalization.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Reeponmaha et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: