Abstract Background Temporary restorative materials are important for maintaining coronal seal during multi-visit endodontic procedures. Coltosol F, a moisture-activated, self-setting material, is valued for its simplicity and sealing ability, though concerns exist regarding its potential to induce tooth fractures. Objective To evaluate the clinical performance of Coltosol F as temporary restoration material, focusing on tooth fracture incidence, spontaneous dislodgement and the role of a cotton pellet as a spacer material. DuoTemp placed with a cotton pellet and Coltosol F placed without a cotton pellet were used as control groups. Materials and methods A retrospective analysis of 153 consecutive patients requiring primary endodontic treatments (n = 185) performed in an endodontic clinical section from 2019 to 2024 was conducted. All treatments were performed by postgraduate master operators through a predefined rehabilitation protocol. A total of 111 patients, corresponding to 138 Coltosol F treated teeth, were analyzed: 107 teeth with a cotton pellet used as a spacer material (Group A) and 31 without (Group B). Additional groups included 15 patients with 18 teeth provisionally restored with Coltosol F and a cotton pellet under a provisional crown (Group C), and 27 patients with 29 teeth provisionally restored with DuoTEMP (Group D). Outcomes evaluated after 7–14 days included coronal fractures, root fractures and material dislodgment. Results At 7–14 days, adverse events were rare. In the Group A with cotton pellet group, we observed 3 coronal fractures (2.8%), 1 root fracture (0.9%), and 5 spontaneous dislodgements (4.6%). In the Group B, there were 1 coronal fracture (3.2%), 1 root fracture (3.2%), and 1 dislodgement (3.2%). Group C had no adverse events. Group D showed 1 coronal fracture (3.4%) and no dislodgement. Between-group differences were not statistically significant. Conclusion Coltosol F showed a low short-term incidence of fracture and dislodgement during 7–14-day inter-appointment temporization. No statistically significant differences were detected between groups. No adverse events were observed when the temporary restoration was shielded by a provisional crown.
Spinelli et al. (2026) studied this question.