ABSTRACT
Objective: The most important desideratum of a provisional crown is an adequate marginal fit that is essential for maintaining optimal periodontal health, reducing the sensitivity of freshly prepared dentin and protection of the pulp. The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the vertical marginal accuracy of provisional crown materials using three different material systems [chemically activated PMMA powder-liquid system, light activated UDMA single paste system, and chemically activated Bis-GMA two paste auto mix system] and two different techniques [direct and indirect]
Methods: Two customized stainless steel dies, simulating prepared and unprepared tooth were used to fabricate 40 provisional crowns. Additional silicone elastomeric impression and a vacuum-formed polypropylene sheet were used as a matrix. Ten crowns, each of the three material systems used in the study [n = 10 × 3] were fabricated using the direct technique and ten crowns from chemically activated PMMA powder-liquid system [n = 10 × 1] using an indirect technique. Scanning electron microscope [SEM] was used to measure vertical marginal discrepancies at x100 magnification. The results were analyzed using descriptive statistics and comparisons between various groups were made using one way analysis of variance [ANOVA] after checking the normality of data using Shapiro Wilk's Test. Post Hoc Tukey HSD Test was used to determine the statistical difference between the means of independent group pairs
Results: The mean marginal discrepancies of Bis-GMA composite resin, UDMA composite resin, and PMMA acrylic resin using direct technique were 67.15 µm, 71.01 µm, and 84.56 µm respectively. PMMA acrylic resin showed a mean marginal discrepancy of 103.03 µm using the indirect technique
Conclusion: This study has shown that provisional crowns fabricated with Bis-GMA composite resin material [two paste auto mix system] registered the best marginal accuracy. Provisional crowns fabricated with indirect technique recorded less marginal opening than with direct technique