British Journal of Applied Science & Technology

7(5): 520-527, 2015, Article no.BJAST.2015.170

ISSN: 2231-0843

SCIENCEDOMAIN international
www.sciencedomain.org

Comparative Evaluation of Fracture Resistance of

Three Commercially Available Resins for Provisional
Restorations: An In vitro Study
Rinshu Dokania1*, Ramesh P. Nayakar1 and Raghunath Patil1
1
Department of Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge, V.K Institute of Dental Sciences,
KLE University, Belgaum-590010, Karnataka, India.

Authors’ contributions

This work was carried out in collaboration between all authors. Authors RD and RPN designed the
study, performed the statistical analysis, wrote the protocol and wrote the first draft of the manuscript
and managed literature searches. Authors RPN, RD and RP managed the analyses of the study and
literature searches. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Article Information

DOI: 10.9734/BJAST/2015/15767
Editor(s):
(1) Selvakumar Subbian, Laboratory of Mycobacterial Pathogenesis and Immunity, Public Health Research Institute (PHRI) at
Rutgers Biomedical and Health Sciences, Newark, USA.
Reviewers:
(1) Cherif Adel Mohsen, Fixed Prosthodontics Dept., Minia University, Egypt.
(2) Anonymous, Turkey.
(3) Anonymous, India.
Complete Peer review History: http://www.sciencedomain.org/review-history.php?iid=774&id=5&aid=8369

th
Received 17 December 2014
Short Research Article Accepted 17th February 2015
th
Published 8 March 2015

ABSTRACT

Aims: To evaluate and compare the fracture resistance of three commercially available resins for
provisional restorations.
Study Design: The fracture resistance of three commercially available resins for provisional
restorations (DPI Dental Products India, SNAP, PROTEMP4) have been tested for three point
bend test using Universal Testing Machine and the mean fracture resistance of each specimens
were tabulated and subjected to statistical analysis.
Place and Duration of Study: Department of Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge, V.K Institute
of Dental Sciences, KLE University, Belgaum, Karnataka, India and Gogte Institute of Technology,
Belgaum, Karnataka, India between March 2013 and December 2013.
Methodology: A Ni-Cr alloy master model with a 3-unit FPD, (Fixed Partial Denture) (abutment
teeth 45 and 47) was fabricated. Provisional 3-unit FPD’s (5 samples each of DPI, SNAP,
PROTEMP4) were produced by direct fabrication using the master model. Maximum force at
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

*Corresponding author: E-mail: rinshudokania1@gmail.com;

 Dokania et al.; BJAST, 7(5): 520-527, 2015; Article no.BJAST.2015.170

fracture was determined using a universal testing machine.

Results: Comparison of the mean fracture resistance between the three groups was done using
one way ANOVA. Statistically significant difference was present between the groups (p<0.05).
Bonferroni test was applied and statistically significant difference was seen between DPI and
Protemp4 but not between DPI and SNAP or between SNAP and Protemp4.Hence this suggested
that Protemp4 significantly has higher fracture resistance when compared to DPI.
Conclusion: Bis-acryl composite resin (Protemp 4) was significantly superior in fracture resistance
to ethyl methacrylate (SNAP) and methyl methacrylate (DPI) as a provisional restorative material
for provisional restorations in fixed partial dentures.

Keywords: Methyl methacrylate resin; ethyl methacrylate resin; bis-acryl composite resin; resins for
provisional restorations; fracture resistance.

1. INTRODUCTION subjected to various functional loads which

cause the prosthesis to flex in different
Fixed prosthodontic treatment involves the directions. In order to assess if a provisional
restoration of compromised natural teeth with restorative material is strong enough to
crowns or partially edentulous arches with fixed withstand such forces, fracture resistance should
dental prosthesis or implant supported be determined.
prosthesis. Fixed prosthesis used to replace
missing teeth, improve patient comfort and This in vitro study determined fracture resistance
masticatory ability, maintains the health and of three different commercially available
integrity of the dental arches and in many provisional crown and bridge material which
instances elevates the patient's self-image [1]. were subjected to maximum load.

During the tooth preparation procedure, much of 2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

the tooth structure is removed and it becomes
comparatively smaller in size, thus compromising The mechanical properties of the three different
the esthetics, masticatory efficiency and occlusal materials and manufacturing techniques were
harmony. This is when the role of provisional tested using a semi clinical setup on a metal
restoration is to be considered. The need for master model with a 3-unit FPD. The three resins
provisional restorations arises due to the tested were DPI tooth moulding powder and
considerable time that is required for the liquid (methyl methacrylate resin), SNAP (ethyl
fabrication of the definitive prosthesis. methacrylate resin), Protemp4 (bis-acryl
Provisional restoration has its function only for a composite resin).Table 1 briefs an overview of
limited period of time, after which it is to be the materials tested including their composition.
replaced by a definitive prosthesis. The purpose All materials were used according to the
of providing a provisional restoration would manufacturer’s recommendations.
include immediate replacement of missing teeth,
protection of pulp and maintenance of 2.1 Preparation of the Master Model
periodontal health, to provide occlusal stability
and hence to improve masticatory efficiency An addition polysilicone putty (Dentsply Inc,
[2,3,4,5,6]. Germany) index of 45, 46 and 47 with 46 as a
pontic was fabricated on the mandibular
Currently available provisional materials can be typhodont teeth (Frasco, Germany). The pontic
divided into four resin groups, namely, poly 46 was a hygienic pontic and was made in inlay
(methyl methacrylates), poly (R′ methacrylates), wax (Figs. 1 and 2).
bis-acryl composite resins and visible light cured
urethane dimethacrylates [7]. The occlusal surface of the pontic was shaped to
allow unequivocal positioning of a stainless steel
Clinicians should be familiar with the range of spheric in the centre of the FPD. The space
mechanical properties of commercially available between the cervical surface of the pontic and
provisional restorative materials to determine a the crest of the ridge was shaped with putty in
suitable material for a specific treatment plan. In order to standardize the space (Fig. 3).
clinical situations, fixed partial dentures are

521
 Dokania et al.; BJAST, 7(5): 520-527, 2015; Article no.BJAST.2015.170

Table 1. The materials used in the study

Serial no Name of the material Manufacturer Composition Lot number

1. Self cure tooth moulding DPI ,Bombay, Methyl- SB13
powder and liquid India methacrylate resin
2. Self cure SNAP polymer PARKELL inc Ethyl-methacrylate S441
and monomer Edgewood, USA resin
TM
3. Protemp 4 3M ESPE Bis-acryl 503990
NorthRyde, USA composite resin

Inlay wax (Bego, Germany) was poured into this

impression and retrieved to obtain the final model
in wax (Fig. 6).

Fig. 1. Typhodont teeth set with 46 as pontic

made in inlay wax

Fig. 3. Standardization of space between the

cervical surface of the pontic and the crest of
the ridge

Fig. 2. Addition polysilicone putty index of 45,

46 and 47

Tooth preparation was done on 45 and 47 to

receive cast metal restoration. The finish line of
choice was chamfer finish line (Fig. 4). Fig. 4. Tooth preparation showing chamfer
finish line
Two stage putty light body (Dentsply Inc,
Germany) sectional impression of the model Spruing and casting was done using Ni-Cr alloy
(prepared 45, 47 and missing 46 region) was (Wiron99, Bego, Germany), then trimming,
made (Fig. 5). finishing and polishing was done to obtain the
master model (Fig. 7).

522
 Dokania et al.; BJAST, 7(5): 520-527, 2015; Article no.BJAST.2015.170

Fig. 7. Final model in metal

Fig. 5. Two stage putty light body sectional
impression of the model

Fig. 8. Manipulation of DPI and snap

Fig. 6. Final model In inlay wax

2.2 Direct Fabrication of Provisionals

Direct fabrication of provisional FPD’s (5 samples

each) was performed using the putty index made
earlier. The provisional materials DPI and SNAP
were mixed in a small mixing jar using stainless
steel spatula and PROTEMP4 was injected in to
mould using cartridge supplied by the
manufacturer. All the materials were dispensed
into the putty index from bottom to top to prevent
incorporation of voids (Figs. 8, 9 and 10).

The filled impression was then placed in the

correct position onto the master model by a Fig. 9. Material dispensed into the putty index
single operator (Fig. 11).
2.3 Testing the Fracture Resistance
The provisional’s were carefully removed from
the putty index after the manufacturers The Ni-Cr alloy alveolar ridge master model
recommended setting time. Excess material was along with the fabricated provisional’s were kept
trimmed to precisely fit them on to the abutment in the Universal Testing Machine (Instron, Italy)
teeth in the desired position (Fig. 12). for fracture testing. A stainless steel spherical

523
 Dokania et al.; BJAST, 7(5): 520-527, 2015; Article no.BJAST.2015.170

ball (diameter 6mm) was placed on the central

fossa of the occlusal surface of the pontic
(Fig. 13).

Fig. 13. Setup with temporary bridge and

sphere prior to fracture testing
Fig. 10. Manipulation of protemp4 using
dispensing gun Fracture test was started at a crosshead speed
of 1.2 mm/min until fracture occurred (Fig. 14)
Maximum force at which the fracture occurred
was recorded.

Fig. 11. Positioning of the putty index on the

master model

Fig. 14. Fracture of the bridge after load

application

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The maximum forces at fracture is listed in Table

2 and summarized in Fig. 15.

Protemp4 showed the highest fracture resistance

values followed by SNAP and then DPI. Table 3
shows the comparison of the mean fracture
resistance between the three groups using one
Fig. 12. Trimmed temporary bridge way ANOVA.

524
 Dokania et al.; BJAST, 7(5): 520-527, 2015;; Article no.BJAST.2015.170
no.

700

600

Mean Fracture resistance (N)

500

400

300

200

100

0
PROTEMP 4 SNAP DPI (control)
Materials Used

Fig. 15.. Graph comparing the mean fracture resistance and the materials used

Table 2. Maximum force at fracture in Newtons (N)

DPI self cure Snap Protemp 4

Sample 1 321.5986 289.43712 586.7424
Sample 2 289.43712 353.75648 450.23552
Sample 3 385.91616 546.71456 482.3952
Sample 4 482.3952 578.87424 578.87424
Sample 5 321.5986 321.5968 643.1936
Mean±S.D. 548.29±79.65
548.29± 418.08±134.53 360.19±76.78
360.19

Table 3. Statistical evaluation-

evaluation one way ANOVA

Fracture resistance (N) Degree of freedom P value

DPI (control) 360.190000
Snap 418.076000 14 0.03
Protemp4 548.288000

Statistically significant difference was present Therefore, a semi-clinical

clinical setup with a master
between the groups (P<0.05).
<0.05). Bonferroni test model was selected to simulate the clinical
was then applied for pair wise comparis
comparison, in situations [9,10].
which the statistically significant difference was
seen between DPI and Protemp4 but not While fracture resistance values obtained in a
between DPI and SNAP or between SNAP and laboratory under static load mayy not reflect the
Protemp4 (Table 4). Hence this suggested that conditions found in the oral environment, it is
Protemp4 significantly has higher fracture helpful to compare provisional materials tested in
resistance when compared to DPI. a controlled situation. Strength values may be a
useful predictor of clinical performance.
This
s study aimed at investigating the influence of
fabrication technique and material on the fracture Statistically significant results between methyl
meth
resistance of provisional 3-unit
unit FPD’s. When methacrylate- type resins and bis-acryls
acryls could be
fabricating provisional crowns and FPD’s, the partly attributed to the difference in their chemical
quality of the final restoration is strongly composition. Traditional methyl (DPI) and ethyl
dependent on the technique
nique used as well as the methacrylate (SNAP) type resins are
accuracy used during manufacturing [8]. monofunctional. They are low molecular-weight,
molecular

525
 Dokania et al.; BJAST, 7(5): 520-527, 2015; Article no.BJAST.2015.170

linear molecules that exhibit decreased strength use. This study has shown that, among the three
and rigidity. Bis-acryl composite resins different provisional materials used, bis-acryl
(PROTEMP 4) are difunctional and capable of resin would be expected to provide a greater
cross-linking with another monomer chain. This fracture resistance when used for provisional
crosslinking imparts strength and toughness to fixed partial dentures.
the material [11]. Bis-acryls are also gaining
popularity, in part because of their ease of ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
fabrication and finishing. This may be contributed
to superior results credited to Protemp4 [12]. We would like to thank Department of
Mechanical Engineering, Gogte Institute of
Table 4. Post Hoc comparison – Bonferroni Technology, Belgaum, Karnataka, India.
test

DPI Snap Protemp 4 COMPETING INTERESTS

DPI -- 1.00 0.036
Snap 1.00 -- 0.189 Authors have declared that no competing
Protemp 4 0.036 0.189 -- interests exist.

BAC (Bis Acryl Composite) resins are supplied in REFERENCES

automixing cartridge, presumably providing more
homogeneous mix than hand mixing the 1. Herbert T. shillingburg, Sumiya Hobo,
PMMA(Poly Methyl Methacrylate) resin [13]. Lowell D. Whitsett, Richard Jacobi, Susan
However this is not supported by Haselton et al. E. Brackett. Fundamentals of fixed
[11] who found no lower standard deviations for prosthodontics. Third edition. 1997;1.
the BAC resins compared to hand mixed PMMA 2. Krug RS. Temporary resin crowns and
resin. bridges. Dent Clin North Am. 1975;19:313-
20.
BAC resin has been marketed as Protemp 4 3. Kastenbaum F. Laboratory processed
Garant. This includes a newly modified monomer provisional prosthesis. NY Dent.
system, not with the rigid intermediate chain 1982;52:39-44.
characteristic of BAC resin, but with flexible chain 4. McCabe JF. Temporary crown and bridge
in comparison to other synthetic resins. This resins. In: McCabe Anderson applied
modification allows a balance between high dental materials. Oxford: Blackwell
mechanical strength and limited elasticity of the scientific publications. 1985;153-4
BAC resin resulting in a material that can 5. Russell MD. The role of provisional
withstand higher stresses until fracture and that restorations. Dental Update. 1986;13:425-
can tolerate brief deformation [6]. On the 37
contrary, a study conducted by Poonacha et al. 6. Osman YI, Owen CP, MScDent. Flexural
[14] and Sharma SP et al. [15] stated that strength of provisional restorative
Methacrylate based autopolymerizing resins materials. Journal of Prosthet Dent.
showed the highest flexural strength and elastic 1993;70:94-96
moduli after fabrication and after storing in 7. Herbert T. Shillingburg, Sumiya Hobo,
artificial saliva and for 24 hours and 7 days and Lowell D. Whitsett, Richard Jacobi, Susan
Bis-acrylic composite resin showed the least E. Brackett. Fundamentals of fixed
flexural strength and elastic moduli [14,16]. prosthodontics. Third edition. 1997;226-
227
Moreover, a temporary luting agent was omitted 8. Vanessa alt, Matthias Hannig, Bernd
for the purpose to exclude it as additional Wostmann. Fracture strength of temporary
influencing variable. It might be speculated that fixed partial dentures, CAD/CAM versus
luting agent would have increased the fracture directly fabricated restorations. Dental
resistance. However, these issues can be materials. 2011;27:339-347
addressed in further studies [8]. 9. Lang R, Rosentritt M, Behr M. Handel.
Fracture resistance of PMMA and resin
4. CONCLUSION matrix composite-based interim FPD
Fracture resistance of a provisional resin is only materials. Int J Prosthodont. 2003;16:381-
one of a number of factors to be taken into 4
account in selecting suitable materials for clinical

526
 Dokania et al.; BJAST, 7(5): 520-527, 2015; Article no.BJAST.2015.170

10. Vallittu PK. The effect of glass fiber 14. Poonacha V, Poonacha S, Salagundi B,
reinforcement on the fracture resistance of Rupesh PL, Raghavan RJ. In vitro
a provisional fixed partial denture. J comparison of flexural strength and elastic
Prosthet Dent. 1998;79:125-30 modulus of three provisional crown
11. Debra R Haselton, Ana M. Diaz-Arnold, materials used in fixed Prosthodontics. Clin
Marcos A. Vargas. Flexural strength of Exp Dent. 2013;5(5):212-17.
provisional crown and fixed partial denture 15. Sharma SP, Jain AR, Balasubramanian R,
resins. Journal of Prosthet Dent. Alavandar S, Mnoharan PS. An In vitro
2002;87:225-228 evaluation of flexural strength of two
12. Young HM, Smith CT, Morton D. provisional restorative materials, light
Comparative in vitro evaluation of polymerized resin and autopolymerized
provisional restorative materials. J Prosthet resin. IOSR Journal of Dental and Medical
Dent. 2001;85:129-32 Sciences. 2013;6:5-10.
13. Kamble VD, Parkhedker RD, Mowade TK. 16. Yanikoğlu ND, Bayindir F, Kürklü D, Beşir
The effect of different fibre reinforcements B. Flexural strength of temporary
on flexural strength of provisional restorative materials stored in different
restorative resins- an In-vitro study. J Adv solutions. Open Journal of Stomatology.
Prosthodont. 2012;4:1-6. 2014;4:291-98
_________________________________________________________________________________
© 2015 Dokania et al.; This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited.

Peer-review history:
The peer review history for this paper can be accessed here:
http://www.sciencedomain.org/review-history.php?iid=774&id=5&aid=8369

527