ArticleThe Saudi dental journal2025
Mechanical performance of contemporary provisional crown materials: insights for clinical decision-making.
Article in The Saudi dental journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of this research was to evaluate and compare the flexural strength and practical uses of provisional crown materials such as self-curing polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA), heat-curing PMMA, self-curing temporary acrylic resin (Tempron), fast-setting Bis-Acrylic self-cure (Structur 2 SC), and Bis-Acryl composite (Protemp-III Garant). Standardized specimens (25 mm x 10 mm x 2 mm) of each material were fabricated (n = 15 per group) and allowed to bench cure for 20 min under a constant load of 500N. Heat-activated PMMA specimens were polymerized at 90 °C for 2 h. Specimens were polymerized in normal saline at 37 °C for five days to simulate oral conditions. A universal testing machine (UTM) assessed their flexural strength and elastic modulus. Significant differences were observed among the materials (p < 0.05). Protemp III Garant showed the highest mean flexural strength, followed by Structure 2 SC and Tempron, while self-cure and heat-cure PMMA exhibited the lowest values. However, the elastic modulus values did not differ significantly among groups (p > 0.05. Within the limitations of this in vitro study, Protemp III and Structure 2 SC demonstrated superior flexural performance compared with other tested materials, suggesting their potential suitability as provisional crown materials. Further long-term in vivo studies are recommended to validate these findings.
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.