ArticleCureus2025
Comparative Evaluation of Surface Hardness of Bis-Acryl Composite and Polymethyl Methacrylate-Based Provisional Restorative Materials: An In Vitro Study.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Current Clinical Practices and Digital Technology Adoption in Provisional Prosthodontics: A Cross-Sectional Survey Among Romanian Dental Practitioners.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionProvisional restorations are essential components of fixed prosthodontic treatment that provide protection, function, esthetics, and guidance during the transitional phase before definitive restorations are placed. The choice of materials for provisional restorations plays a critical role in determining their clinical effectiveness and durability. Among the numerous available materials, bis-acryl composite resins and polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA)-based acrylics are widely used. Surface hardness is a key mechanical property that directly affects a material's resistance to masticatory forces, wear, and deformation during function. This in vitro study was conducted to compare the surface hardness of three bis-acryl composite materials with that of one PMMA-based material to aid clinicians in selecting the most suitable material based on the performance characteristics. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis in vitro study was conducted in the Department of Prosthodontics. Group 1 (n=40) used 3M Protemp 4 Temporization Material (St. Paul, MN: 3M ESPE AG), group 2 (n=40) used Dentsply Integrity Temporary Crown and Bridge Material (York, PA: Dentsply Sirona), group 3 (n=40) used Vericom Care C&B Dual-Cure Temporary Material (Anyang, South Korea: Vericom Co. Ltd.), and group 4 (n=40) used Pyrax High-Quality Cold Cure SC-10 (Roorkee, India: Pyrax Polymars). The specimens were prepared using stainless-steel molds. Each material was manipulated according to the manufacturer's instructions and cured according to recommended protocols. Vickers hardness testing was performed under a 25 g load for 15 s. Two indentations were made per specimen, and the Vickers Hardness Number (VHN) was calculated. The data were then subjected to statistical analysis.
resultsGroup 1 recorded the highest mean hardness (20.54±0.69 VHN), followed by group 2 with 19.80±0.47 VHN, group 3 with 18.55±1.36 VHN, and group 4 showing the lowest hardness (16.65±0.66 VHN). One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) revealed statistically significant differences between all groups (p<0.01), with group 1 exhibiting the highest hardness across pairwise comparisons.
conclusionBis-acryl composite materials demonstrated a significantly higher surface hardness than PMMA-based materials. 3M Protemp 4 showed the greatest hardness and may be best suited for long-term provisional restorations, whereas Pyrax SC-10 is more appropriate for short-term use owing to its lower mechanical strength.
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.