ArticleCureus2024
A Comparative Clinical Performance of Polymethyl Methacrylate (PMMA) and Urethane Dimethacrylate (UDMA) Materials in Provisional Fixed Prostheses.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effect of different 3D-printing systems on the flexural strength of provisional fixed dental prostheses: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of in vitro studies.BMC oral health · 2025Pooled it
- Current Clinical Practices and Digital Technology Adoption in Provisional Prosthodontics: A Cross-Sectional Survey Among Romanian Dental Practitioners.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Biocompatibility and Cell Death Mechanisms Induced by PMMA-Based Dental Materials in Gingival Fibroblasts and OECM-1 Tumor Cells.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- A Comparative In Vitro Study of Materials for Provisional Restorations Manufactured With Additive (3Dprinting), Subtractive (Milling), and Conventional Techniques.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThis study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) and urethane dimethacrylate (UDMA) as materials for fixed provisional restorations, focusing on handling properties, chair time, and periodontal outcomes, due to their prevalent use in dental practice. MATERIALS AND
methodsA comparative clinical study was conducted with 150 patients at the Department of Fixed Prosthodontics, Damascus University, Damascus, Syria. Patients undergoing prosthetic treatments with crowns and bridges received two fixed provisional restorations using a direct approach. The first, made immediately after abutment preparation, used PMMA. The second, created post-clinical try-in of the final restoration, utilized UDMA. Both restorations were maintained for one week. We assessed chair time, handling properties via the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and periodontal health using the Plaque Index and Gingival Index. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to assess data normality. Differences between the two groups in the outcome variables were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test. The level of significance was set at (P < 0.05).
resultsThe handling properties of chemically activated PMMA resin were superior to those of light-activated UDMA resin. However, UDMA resin outperformed in terms of chair time and periodontal outcomes. The mean chair time was 9.45 ± 1.01 minutes for PMMA and 4.40 ± 0.77 minutes for UDMA. Mild gingivitis or plaque accumulation was observed in 57.3% of PMMA restorations and 44.0% of UDMA restorations. Moderate gingivitis and plaque accumulation were noted in 42.7% of PMMA restorations, while 56.0% of UDMA restorations showed no plaque accumulation or gingival inflammation.
conclusionChemically activated PMMA resin offers excellent handling properties, whereas light-activated UDMA resin provides advantages in chair time and periodontal health, making it a preferable choice for provisional restorations. Limitations and future research: The study was limited to short-term outcomes and did not assess the long-term durability of the restorations or their aesthetic impact on patient satisfaction. Further studies are recommended to evaluate the long-term performance of these materials, their cost-effectiveness, and their aesthetic outcomes to provide a more comprehensive understanding of their clinical utility.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.