Categories

Volume 8 Issue 7 (July, 2020)

Original Articles

Comparative evaluation of flexural strength and hardness of four different commercially available provisional restorative materials in fixed prosthodontics- An in vitro study
Pooja Agroya, Bhushan Thoke, Vijay Shekhar, Rahul VC Tiwari, Anil Managutti, Heena Tiwari

Aim: To evaluate and compare the flexural strength and hardness of four different commercially available provisional restorative resins for the fabrication of interim fixed partial restoration used in dental clinics. Objectives: This in vitro study will be carried out with the following objectives: 1) To measure and compare the flexural strength of four different commercially available provisional restorative materials that will help to provide strength to the restoration. 2) To measure and compare the hardness of four different commercially available provisional restorative materials which will give adequate strength to the interim restoration. Materials and method: Four provisional crown and bridge resins, DPI self‑cure tooth molding powder (PMMA) (Group A), SNAP (EMA) (Group B), Protemp 4 Temporization Material (bis‑acrylic composite) (Group C) and Revotek LC (urethane dimethacrylate) (Group D) were used. Rectangular shaped specimens for flexural strength testing (n = 10 for each material) and hardness testing (n = 10 for each material) were fabricated using a metal mold. The specimens were immersed in distilled water for 8 days37-42C. Flexural strength and hardness was evaluated after 8 days of immersion. Result: Group C showed significantly higher flexural strength and hardness as compared to Group A, B and D. Conclusion: The findings of the study showed that, Protem-4 has more flexural strength and hardness as compared to other resin materials. Key words: Provisional materials, flexural strength, hardness and distilled water.

 
Abstract View | Download PDF | Current Issue


 
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.  
?>