website: 86th General Session & Exhibition of the IADR

ABSTRACT: 3101  

A Comparative Study between Two Preformed Provisional Crown Fabrication Techniques

V. TSAKALELLI, N. CHAIMATTAYOMPOL, E. ANTONELLOU, and D. PARK, Tufts University School of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA, USA

Recently, there is a newly introduced preformed single provisional restoration ProTemp Crown (3M,ESPSE) proposed as an innovative, revolutionary breakthrough temporization material and technique. There is no original research of the comparison between ProTemp crowns to polycarbonated temporary crowns (3M,ESPE).

Objectives: This current in vitro study was conducted to compare the amount of time spent to fabricate the different restorations and evaluate the quality of marginal integrity, interproximal and occlusal contacts of ProTemp and polycarbonated temporary crowns.

Methods: Tooth #4 secured in Columbia typodont was prepared in mannequin with chamfer finish line. Forty (N=40) single provisional crowns were fabricated on the prepared abutment tooth using two different techniques, Group1—prefabricated polycarbonated crowns and Group2—preformed ProTemp crowns, (20/Gp).

The amount of time spent for fabrication (including relining, when necessary) was recorded. Two calibrated and trained prosthodontists evaluated the marginal integrity and the interproximal contacts based on the Modified United States Public Health (USPHS) criteria. Occlusion was also evaluated. The amount of time spent to fabricate provisional crowns of both groups was recorded and statistically analyzed (ANOVA, p<0.05) and the rating of marginal integrity, interproximal contact and occlusion were recorded and statistically analyzed (Mann-Whitney U test, p<0.01).

Results: The results revealed that the amount of time spent to fabricate provisional crowns is statistically significantly different between Group 1 and Group 2. The mean time to fabricate a provisional crown in Group 2 is less than in Group 1. Mann-Whitney U test was used to analyze marginal integrity, interproximal contact and occlusion. There were no statistically significant differences between the two techniques.

Conclusion: The use of ProTemp crown significantly reduced the time spent to fabricate a provisional crown. ProTemp technique was equivalent to polycarbonated provisional crown technique.

Back to Top