[Clinical evaluation of two temporary restoration materials: Composite and self-cured acrylic resin].
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical application and effect of two temporary restorations materials: composite and self-cured acrylic resin.


METHODS
153 composite temporary crowns (and bridges) placed in 44 patients and 144 self-cured acrylic resin temporary crowns (and bridges) placed in 49 patients were evaluated according to the California Dental Association's (CDA) criteria and questionnaire.


RESULTS
It showed that composite temporary crowns (and bridges) had better surface smoothness, marginal integrity and anatomic form than self-cured acrylic resin temporary crowns (and bridges). In the 49 patients with self-cured acrylic resin temporary crowns (and bridges), 67% and 88% of them complained of food impaction and mouth odor, while only 2% and 30% in the 44 patients with composite temporary crowns (and bridges) had the same complaint.


CONCLUSIONS
Between the two temporary restoration materials, composite is better than self-cured acrylic resin.
Luo
Yun
Y
Department of Prosthodontics, West China College of Stomatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, China.
Wang
Weixin
W
Yang
Zheng
Z
D000180:Acrylic Resins; D003188:Composite Resins; D003442:Crowns; D001840:Dental Bonding; D018772:Dental Marginal Adaptation; D003794:Dental Restoration, Temporary / Q000379:methods; D006801:Humans; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires
D000180:Acrylic Resins; D003188:Composite Resins