Marginal adaptation and color stability of four provisional materials.
OBJECTIVE
A number of provisional restorative materials exist on the market. This study tested marginal fit and color stability of three provisional restorative materials and a control.


METHODS
Two auto-cure materials, Protemp Garant and Integrity, and one dual-cure material, Luxatemp Solar, were tested against SNAP, a polyethyl methacrylate control. A maxillary right central incisor ivorine tooth was prepared for a full coverage all-ceramic crown, with a 1.5-mm chamfer margin. Four points were engraved at a point 1 mm below the facial, lingual, mesial, and distal margins, and replicas (n = 40) were produced by the manufacturer. Provisional crowns (n = 10 x 4) were fabricated on the individual replicas using a polyethylene coping template. The crowns were trimmed under magnification using an acrylic bur. The distance from the crown margins to a point tangent to the engraved markings was measured under 10x magnification and recorded. For color stability, 10-mm diameter x 2-mm thick discs (n = 10 x 4) were fabricated and immersed cyclically in tea for 1 week in a Tucillo/Nielson apparatus. Color measurements were recorded for each specimen at baseline and after staining. DeltaE values were calculated to determine the extent of the color change.


RESULTS
The means of the four marginal discrepancy measurements for each specimen were analyzed using a 1-way ANOVA and Tukey post-hoc comparison. Luxatemp Solar had statistically significant marginal discrepancy (319 microm, p < 0.05) when compared to the other provisional materials. A significant color change (DeltaE = 4.33, p < 0.05) was found for Protemp Garant.


CONCLUSIONS
The dual-cure temporary material (Luxatemp Solar) exhibited significantly more discrepancy at the margin than the auto-cure bis-acryl materials or acrylic control. Protemp Garant exhibited a clinically noticeable change in shade after 1 week in staining solution, whereas the other materials did not exhibit a clinically noticeable change.


CONCLUSIONS
Provisional crowns fabricated from SNAP, Protemp Garant, and Integrity exhibited similarly low marginal discrepancy. SNAP, Luxatemp Solar, and Integrity did not demonstrate a clinically detectable change in shade after 1 week in a staining solution.
Givens
Edward J
EJ
United States NavySchool of Dentistry, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Neiva
Gisele
G
United States NavySchool of Dentistry, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Yaman
Peter
P
United States NavySchool of Dentistry, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Dennison
Joseph B
JB
United States NavySchool of Dentistry, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
D000180:Acrylic Resins / Q000737:chemistry; D017438:Bisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate / Q000737:chemistry; D003116:Color; D003124:Colorimetry; D003188:Composite Resins / Q000737:chemistry; D003442:Crowns; D018772:Dental Marginal Adaptation; D003764:Dental Materials / Q000737:chemistry*; D017267:Dental Prosthesis Design; D003794:Dental Restoration, Temporary / Q000379:methods*; D006801:Humans; D007180:Incisor; D008422:Materials Testing; D008768:Methylmethacrylates / Q000737:chemistry; D011109:Polymethacrylic Acids / Q000737:chemistry; D013499:Surface Properties; D013662:Tea; D019231:Tooth Preparation, Prosthodontic
D000180:Acrylic Resins; D003188:Composite Resins; D003764:Dental Materials; D008768:Methylmethacrylates; D011109:Polymethacrylic Acids; D013662:Tea; C448321:integrity resin; C098586:luxatemp; C091347:vinyl ethyl methacrylate; D017438:Bisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate; C009931:poly(ethylmethacrylate); C069714:Protemp