A study to investigate and compare the physicomechanical properties of experimental and commercial temporary crown and bridge materials.

OBJECTIVES To develop two experimental temporary crown and bridge materials with improved physicomechanical properties. METHODS Commercial materials: Trim (TR, monomethacrylate, Bosworth) and Quicktemp2 (QT, dimethacrylate, Schottlander). EXPERIMENTAL MATERIALS isobutyl methacrylate/poly(ethyl methacrylate) (IBMA/PEM) and n-butyl methacrylate/PEM (nBMA/PEM), both monomethacrylates. For water absorption/desorption studies rectangular samples (40 mm × 10 mm × 1 mm) of each material were prepared, immersed in deionized water (DW, control) and artificial saliva (AS), and weighed at regular time intervals. %solubility and diffusion coefficients (D) for uptake/loss processes were calculated and compared with theoretical predictions. Polymerization exotherm (cylindrical samples 10 mm × 18 mm) and flexural moduli were measured (three point bending; rectangular samples 80 mm × 10 mm × 4 mm, dry and after 9 days storage in DW). The data were compared statistically. RESULTS QT and nBMA/PEM had lower %equilibrium uptakes/loss in DW (0.68%/0.884% and 0.64%/0.895% respectively). QT had the lowest water absorption/desorption D (P<0.05) compared to the three monomethacrylates, in DW and AS. %solubility for all systems showed no differences in DW (P>0.05), but a difference for QT in AS (P<0.05). QT reached its maximum temperature rapidly (∼2 min; 3 monomethacrylates ∼7-13 min). The commercial materials exhibited high peak temperatures (∼51°C, P<0.05; experimental materials ∼43°C). QT had a higher flexural modulus (∼4 GPa; 3 monomethacrylates ∼0.7-1 GPa) for dry and wet samples. The moduli for commercial materials reduced significantly after immersion in DW; there was no difference between the dry and wet experimental materials samples (P>0.05). SIGNIFICANCE The experimental materials merit further studies since they presented with lower setting exotherms, and contained no phthalate plasticizer, thus being less of a risk to patients.

[1]  D A Kaiser,et al.  Temporization techniques in fixed prosthodontics. , 1985, Dental clinics of North America.

[2]  M. Braden,et al.  A new temporary crown and bridge resin , 1976, British Dental Journal.

[3]  M. Vargas,et al.  Flexural strength of provisional crown and fixed partial denture resins. , 2002, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[4]  M. Braden,et al.  Polymeric Dental Materials , 1997 .

[5]  F. Nejatidanesh,et al.  Flexural strength of interim resin materials for fixed prosthodontics. , 2009, Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists.

[6]  J. Koumjian,et al.  Evaluation of fracture resistance of resins used for provisional restorations. , 1990, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[7]  D. R. Federick The provisional fixed partial denture. , 1975, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[8]  Martin F. Land,et al.  Contemporary Fixed Prosthodontics , 1988 .

[9]  D. R. Burns,et al.  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. , 2003, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[10]  D. V. Krevelen Properties of Polymers , 1990 .

[11]  F. Vahidi The provisional restoration. , 1985, The New York state dental journal.

[12]  Bruno C. Hancock,et al.  The Relationship Between the Glass Transition Temperature and the Water Content of Amorphous Pharmaceutical Solids , 1994, Pharmaceutical Research.

[13]  M Braden,et al.  Review of the biological response to a novel bone cement containing poly(ethyl methacrylate) and n-butyl methacrylate. , 1998, Biomaterials.

[14]  Volker Mersch-Sundermann,et al.  Phthalates: toxicology and exposure. , 2007, International journal of hygiene and environmental health.

[15]  S. Downes,et al.  Heterocyclic methacrylates for clinical applications–further studies of water sorption , 1997, Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine.

[16]  K. A. Jackson Mathematics of Diffusion , 2005 .

[17]  D. Morton,et al.  Comparative in vitro evaluation of two provisional restorative materials. , 2001, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[18]  Gordon J Christensen,et al.  The fastest and best provisional restorations. , 2003, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[19]  M. Barsby A denture base resin with low water absorption. , 1992, Journal of dentistry.

[20]  M. Braden,et al.  Comparison of Various Properties of a Silorane Based Dental Composite with Two Methacrylate Based Dental Composites , 2014 .

[21]  R. Yuodelis,et al.  Provisional restorations: an integrated approach to periodontics and restorative dentistry. , 1980, Dental clinics of North America.

[22]  L ZACH,et al.  PULP RESPONSE TO EXTERNALLY APPLIED HEAT. , 1965, Oral surgery, oral medicine, and oral pathology.

[23]  John M. Powers,et al.  Craig's Restorative Dental Materials , 2012 .

[24]  M. Fielden,et al.  Examination of the in vitro and in vivo estrogenic activities of eight commercial phthalate esters. , 1998, Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology.

[25]  M. Braden The absorption of water by acrylic resins and other materials , 1964 .

[26]  M. Okazaki,et al.  Leachability of plasticizer and residual monomer from commercial temporary restorative resins. , 2004, Journal of dentistry.