Temporary materials: comparison of in vivo and in vitro performance.
Fracture force
In vitro testing
In vivo investigation
Provisional materials
Roughness
TCML
Temporary materials
Wear
Journal
Clinical oral investigations
ISSN: 1436-3771
Titre abrégé: Clin Oral Investig
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9707115
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Nov 2020
Nov 2020
Historique:
received:
11
04
2019
accepted:
08
04
2020
pubmed:
26
6
2020
medline:
22
12
2020
entrez:
26
6
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The aim of this investigation was to compare clinical performance and in vitro wear of temporary CAD/CAM and cartridge crowns. This study is an approach to estimate the influence of in vivo use and laboratory simulation on temporary crowns. A total of 90 crowns were fabricated from each temporary CAD/CAM or cartridge material. Also, 10 crowns of each material were clinically applied for 14 days, and 80 identical duplicate restorations were investigated in the laboratory after storage in water (14 days; 37 °C) and subsequent thermal cycling and mechanical loading (TCML, 240.000 × 50N ML, 600 × 5°C/55 °C). After in vivo application or in vitro aging, facture force, superficial wear (mean and maximum), surface roughness (Ra, Rz), thermal weight loss (TGA), and heat of reaction (DSC) were determined for all crowns. Bonferroni post hoc test; one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA); α = 0.05). The fracture resistance of the temporary materials varied between 1196.4 (CAD in vivo) and 1598.3 N (cartridge crown in vitro). Mean (maximum) wear data between 204.7 (386.7 μm; cartridge in vitro) and 353.0 μm (621.8 μm; CAD in vitro) were found. Ra values ranged between 4.4 and 4.9 μm and Rz values between 36.0 and 40.8 μm. DSC and TG analysis revealed small differences between the materials but a strong influence of the aging process. Comparison of in vivo and in vitro aging led to no significant differences in fracture force and wear but differences in roughness, DSC, and TGA. SEM evaluation confirmed comparability. Comparison of CAD/CAM and cartridge temporary materials partially showed significant differences. In vitro aging methods might be helpful to estimate materials' properties before principal clinical application. CAD/CAM and cartridge temporary materials provided comparable good clinical performance.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32583239
doi: 10.1007/s00784-020-03278-5
pii: 10.1007/s00784-020-03278-5
pmc: PMC8275555
doi:
Substances chimiques
Dental Porcelain
12001-21-7
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
4061-4068Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Références
J Prosthet Dent. 2003 Nov;90(5):474-97
pubmed: 14586312
J Adv Prosthodont. 2017 Aug;9(4):294-301
pubmed: 28874997
Eur J Orthod. 2011 Aug;33(4):427-33
pubmed: 21062965
Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2012 Jan;33(1):59-60, 62
pubmed: 22432178
Dent Mater. 2016 Feb;32(2):200-10
pubmed: 26748979
Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2004 Jun;12(2):75-9
pubmed: 15244011
Oral Implantol (Rome). 2015 Apr 13;7(3):57-70
pubmed: 25992260
J Prosthet Dent. 2007 Dec;98(6):461-9
pubmed: 18061740
J Prosthet Dent. 2000 Jan;83(1):32-9
pubmed: 10633020
J Oral Sci. 2019 Jun 18;61(2):270-275
pubmed: 30930357
Dent Mater J. 2019 Jun 1;38(3):343-353
pubmed: 30918233
Pharm Res. 1994 Apr;11(4):471-7
pubmed: 8058600
J Adv Prosthodont. 2015 Feb;7(1):27-31
pubmed: 25722834
J Dent. 2008 Dec;36(12):1048-53
pubmed: 18848380
J Prosthet Dent. 2015 Aug;114(2):248-53
pubmed: 25935084
Int J Prosthodont. 2003 Jul-Aug;16(4):381-4
pubmed: 12956492
Dent Mater. 2011 Apr;27(4):339-47
pubmed: 21176946
J Dent. 1992 Aug;20(4):240-4
pubmed: 1430515
Biomaterials. 2002 Apr;23(8):1897-904
pubmed: 11950060
J Prosthet Dent. 2013 Jul;110(1):21-8
pubmed: 23849610
Dent Mater J. 2018 Nov 30;37(6):957-963
pubmed: 30135337
J Dent Res. 1989 Dec;68(12):1752-4
pubmed: 2600255
J Esthet Restor Dent. 2012 Feb;24(1):26-38
pubmed: 22296692
J Appl Oral Sci. 2016 May-Jun;24(3):258-63
pubmed: 27383707
Int J Prosthodont. 2011 Sep-Oct;24(5):465-8
pubmed: 21909489