ArticleCureus2025
A Comparative In Vivo Analysis of Microhardness in Three Provisional Restorative Materials.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionProvisional restorations are vital in fixed prosthodontics, offering interim esthetics, function, and support until the final restorations are placed. This in vivo study compared the microhardness of three provisional restorative materials, namely, computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM)-milled polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), bisacrylic (Protemp 4), and heat-cured PMMA, after 14 days of intraoral exposure. MATERIALS AND
methodsThirty patients aged 18-50 years, requiring metal-ceramic crowns on the mandibular first or second molars, were selected from the Department of Prosthodontics, Ganni Subba Lakshmi Dental College and Hospital, Rajahmundry, India. After tooth preparation, impressions were made using irreversible hydrocolloids, and the casts were poured with die stones. Two temporary crowns per material were fabricated for each patient using the indirect impression technique: CAD/CAM-milled PMMA via intraoral scanning and milling, bisacrylic via putty index, and heat-cured PMMA via compression molding. One crown per pair (Group A, control) was tested immediately, whereas the other (Group B, case) was cemented intraorally with zinc oxide-eugenol for 14 days. All crowns were embedded in standardized wax blocks and subjected to Vickers microhardness testing (1 kg load, 15 s).
resultsIndependent t-tests revealed a highly significant reduction in microhardness (p < 0.001) in the case groups compared with the control groups for all materials. Mean microhardness in the control group was 22.4 ± 1.2 kg/mm² for CAD/CAM-milled PMMA, 20.8 ± 1.0 kg/mm² for Protemp 4, and 25.6 ± 1.4 kg/mm² for heat-cured PMMA; in case groups, values dropped to 18.1 ± 0.9 kg/mm², 16.5 ± 0.8 kg/mm², and 22.3 ± 1.1 kg/mm², respectively. Heat-cured PMMA exhibited a significantly higher microhardness in both groups (p < 0.001), with CAD/CAM-milled PMMA and Protemp 4 showing comparable values.
conclusionThe findings indicated that heat-cured PMMA offered superior resistance to intraoral degradation, guiding clinicians toward optimal material selection for durable provisional restorations. Further studies should assess their long-term performance and additional properties.
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.