Statement of problem: Different materials (autopolymerizing, dual curing, and light initiated) are used for fabricating provisional restorations during prosthetic treatment. Randomized clinical trials that have evaluated these provisional materials have not been published.
Purpose: This clinical trial compared the handling, fitting, plaque adherence, gingivitis, color stability, and the subjective assessment of the provisional materials by the patient and the dentist for 2 autopolymerizing (Protemp, Luxatemp), 1 dual-curing (Provipont), and 1 light-initiated (Triad-VLC) material for the manufacturing of temporary crowns and fixed partial dentures.
Material and methods: Thirty subjects in need of 2 similar fixed prosthetic restorations (single crowns ¿20, three-quarter crowns ¿2, connected crowns ¿9, or fixed partial dentures ¿30) were treated with 1 temporary restoration of Protemp II (control) and one randomly selected from Luxatemp, Provipont, or Triad-VLC materials. The mean time of treatment was 37.5 days (minimum 2 days, maximum 156 days). All restorations were manufactured intraorally with a vacuum-formed template.
Results: Mechanical and retentive characteristics revealed a high level of clinical reliability. Plaque adherence of the teeth with temporary restorations was significantly increased (P =.0039) compared with the untreated mesial reference teeth.
Conclusion: The advantageous mechanical properties of the light-curing and dual-curing materials reviewed in dental literature were clinically offset by disadvantages in handling.