d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 2 3 ( 2 0 0 7 ) 1574–1583

available at www.sciencedirect.com

journal homepage: www.intl.elsevierhealth.com/journals/dema

Provisional crown and fixed partial denture materials:

Mechanical properties and degree of conversion

Markus Balkenhol a,∗ , Paul Ferger a , Meike Christina Mautner b , Bernd Wöstmann a
a Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Justus-Liebig-University, 35392 Giessen, Germany
b Private Practice, Bahnhofstr. 43, 63667 Nidda, Germany

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Objectives. This study aimed to investigate the flexural strength (FS) and flexural modulus
Received 10 May 2007 (FM) of temporary crown and bridge materials (t-c&b) at different storage times and to iden-
Received in revised form tify possible correlations between the mechanical properties and the degree of conversion
29 June 2007 (DC).
Accepted 29 June 2007 Methods. FS and FM of four proprietary di-methacrylate-based t-c&bs were tested in a 3-
point bending test according to EN ISO 4049:2000 at various storage times after mixing (37 ◦ C
dry/water) including thermocycling (5000×, 5–55 ◦ C). DC was determined by calculating the
Keywords: percentage of reacted C C double bonds using FTIR analysis (baseline method). Mean values
Temporary c&b materials of all measurements were calculated and subjected to the Games–Howell test for statistical
Provisionals analysis (p = 0.05) as well as a logarithmic regression analysis.
Degree of conversion Results. FS and FM were very low 10 min after mixing for all materials tested (FS:
FTIR analysis 14.5–24.5 MPa; FM: 96.1–211.2 MPa). A very high correlation was observed between FS and FM
Flexural strength on the one hand and storage time on the other. The DC was on a high level already 10 min
Flexural modulus after mixing (57.7–69.8%) for all materials except for Structur Premium (42.2%). Structur Pre-
Regression analysis mium showed a significantly higher FS and FM (p < 0.05) compared to all other materials
In vitro test tested though a significantly lower DC (p < 0.05).
Thermocycling Significance. FS and FM of t-c&bs significantly depend on the time after mixing. Dentists
Resin should be aware of the fact that the mechanical stability of temporary crowns is comparably
low in the first hours after fabrication. The DC does not allow drawing conclusions about
the mechanical stability of a t-c&b.
© 2007 Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction to fabricate temporary crowns or bridges have to meet several

Temporary crown and bridge materials (t-c&b) are essential
for treatment procedures with fixed prosthetic restorations,
i.e. crowns and bridges [1]. They have to fulfil a couple of impor-
tant functions within the timeframe between preparation of a
tooth and until fitting, respectively, luting of the final metal or
ceramic restoration [1–3]. As a consequence, the t-c&bs used
biological, esthetical and mechanical requirements [2,4].
Two major groups of t-c&bs are available to fabricate
temporary restorations: Methacrylate resins (powder/liquid,
hand mixed) and composite-based materials (paste/paste,
mainly automixed) [2]. In recent years, the composite-based
t-c&bs have gained popularity among dental practitioners.
Besides advantages regarding the handling versus traditional

∗
Corresponding author at: Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Schlangenzahl 14, 35392 Giessen, Germany. Tel.: +49 641 9946 144;
fax: +49 641 9946 139.
E-mail address: markus.balkenhol@dentist.med.uni-giessen.de (M. Balkenhol).
0109-5641/$ – see front matter © 2007 Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.dental.2007.06.024
 d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 2 3 ( 2 0 0 7 ) 1574–1583 1575

Table 1 – Temporary c&b materials under investigation

Material Manufacturer Mixing Shade, lot Filler loadb Setting
ratioa (wt.%) timeb (min)

CronMix tembridge Merz, Lütjenburg, Germany 4:1 Universal, 7407189 42 4–6

Protemp 3 Garant 3M ESPE, St. Paul, USA 10:1 A1, B209088/C205204 40 5
Structur Premium VOCO, Cuxhaven, Germany 1:1 A2, 511650 43 3.5
Systemp. c&b Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein 4:1 140/A2, H11311 47 7

a
Base: catalyst (by volume).
b
Manufacturers’ information.

powder/liquid systems, superior mechanical properties [5–8]
might be an explanation for this market trend.
The mechanical strength of a t-c&b is of particular impor-
tance as this factor might influence the integrity of the
temporary restoration during its time in situ when it is
exposed to functional loads [4,7,9,10]. Hence, the determi-
nation of mechanical properties of t-c&bs was subject of
several studies [5–8,11–14]. Most of these studies investi-
gated the mechanical properties at progressed points in time
after setting. This brought valuable information regarding
the mechanical strength of t-c&bs to light when the poly-
merization is more or less complete. However, as temporary
restorations are fitted and luted directly after fabrication (i.e.
10–20 min after mixing), the authors saw the necessity to
investigate the mechanical properties at a very early stage
after mixing and curing, respectively. In addition, the degree
of conversion of the double bonds inside the resin matrix
was determined using FTIR analysis since this parameter is
regarded to be critical important on both, the mechanical
properties and the longevity of the restoration [15,16].
The Null-hypothesis tested was two-fold: first, the mechan-
ical properties of t-c&bs are independent from the time after
mixing and second, are reflected by the degree of conversion.
2. Materials and methods
Four different proprietary di-methacrylate-based t-c&bs
with mixing ratios between 1:1 and 10:1 were tested
(Table 1). All materials were delivered in automixing car-
tridges and used according to their respective manufacturers’
instructions.
2.1. Specimen preparation and storage
Prior to sample preparation, a small amount of material was
dispensed on a mixing pad without the automixing tip in posi-
tion to ensure, that both orifices were open. Subsequently,
the mixing tip was fixed and the material dispensed into the
moulds for the respective test. The time interval between the
start of mixing and the end of dispensing into the mould was
identical for all materials (60 s) and was defined as end of mix-
ing (EoM).
Subsequently, the moulds were placed into an incubator for
10 min at 37 ◦ C (Ehret, Emmendingen, Germany). After setting,
specimens were removed from the mould and subjected to
different storage conditions (Table 2) prior to determination
of flexural strength (FS), flexural modulus (FM) and degree of
conversion (DC). All experiments were carried out at ambient
laboratory atmosphere (23 ± 1 ◦ C, 50% rel. humidity).
2.2. Mechanical properties testing
A stainless steel mould was used to prepare 2 mm ×
2 mm × 25 mm bar-shaped specimens (n = 10 per material and
storage condition) according to EN ISO 4049:2000 [17]. The
mould was allowed to adapt to room temperature prior to
injection of the t-c&b. After injection, the mould was cov-
ered with a transparent polyethylene strip (Hostaphan, Pfütz,
Taunusstein, Germany) and a glass plate was attached tightly
to the stainless steel mould’s surface using a clamp. Excess
material was removed and the mould placed in an incubator as
previously described. Subsequently, specimens were removed
from the mould and subjected to testing (group 1) or further
storage prior to testing (group 2–9). Meticulous attention was
paid regarding exact storage times.

Table 2 – Storage times and conditions after mixing and prior to testing
Test group Incubator Water storagea Mechanical properties FTIR analysis

10 min 10 min, 37 ◦ C / X X
1h 10 min, 37 ◦ C 1 h, 37 ◦ C X n.a.b
2h 10 min, 37 ◦ C 2 h, 37 ◦ C X n.a.
4h 10 min, 37 ◦ C 4 h, 37 ◦ C X X
8h 10 min, 37 ◦ C 8 h 37 ◦ C X n.a.
16 h 10 min, 37 ◦ C 16 h, 37 ◦ C X n.a.
24 h 10 min, 37 ◦ C 24 h, 37 ◦ C X X
3 days 10 min, 37 ◦ C 3 days, 37 ◦ C X n.a.
TC 10 min, 37 ◦ C 7 days, thermocycling (5000 X X
cycles; 5–55 ◦ C; 45 s dwell time)

a
Deionized water.
b
Not analyzed.
 1576
d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 2 3 ( 2 0 0 7 ) 1574–1583
Fig. 1 – IR spectrum of Structur Premium (1673–1584 cm−1 ) directly after mixing (red line) and after TC (blue line), respectively, determined with the UATR-unit of the
Spectrum 100 FTIR device. Baseline added and determination of the relative peak heights directly after mixing (a) and after TC (b) for the aliphatic C C group (rPHdb ) and
aromatic C. . .C ring (rPHaromatic ) for calculation of the DC.
 d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 2 3 ( 2 0 0 7 ) 1574–1583 1577

Immediately before performing a 3-point bending test, 2.3. FTIR analysis

excess material was carefully removed by wet grinding on
SiC paper (grit 2400) and the specimen’s width and height
was measured for the calculation of the FS and FM. A Zwick
1454 universal testing device (Zwick/Roell, Ulm, Germany)
equipped with a 500 N strain gauge (support bar distance:
20 mm; radius of the support bars and rod: 1 mm) was used
at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min to record the stress–strain
curve and determine the ultimate force prior to fracture. FS
and FM was calculated using the following equations [17]:
3Fmax l Flin l3
FS = FM =
2wh2 4dlin wh3
where Fmax = ultimate force (N), l = distance between support
bars (mm), w = width (mm) of the specimen, h = height (mm) of
the specimen, Flin = force in the linear part of the stress–strain
curve (N) and dlin = deflection at Flin (mm).
After testing, the fracture surface of each specimen was
inspected for voids or material deficits, which might have
affected the mechanical stability, by microscopic inspection
(M420, Leica, Bensheim, Germany) at 40× magnification. If
any of such irregularities were obvious the specimen was dis-
carded, a new specimen produced and tested. Mean values
and standard deviations for FS and FM were calculated.
The DC was determined using a SpectrumTM 100 FTIR device
(Perkin Elmer, Shelton, USA) equipped with an universal
diamond ATR unit (spectral range: 4000–650 cm−1 ; spectral
resolution: <0.5 cm−1 ). For testing, disk-shaped specimens
(diameter: 20 mm; thickness: 1 mm) were prepared using a
stainless steel mould covered with polyethylene strips on both
sides to achieve a flat surface using the same technique of
sample preparation as previously described.
To determine the amount of unreacted double bonds inside
the t-c&bs prior to polymerization, a small portion of freshly
mixed material (0.2 ml) was dispensed directly on the crys-
tal of the ATR unit (n = 6 per material) and the spectrum
was recorded immediately (4 scans per specimen) using the
SpectrumTM software (release: 6.0.1, Perkin-Elmer, Shelton,
USA). The mean spectrum of the uncured samples was cal-
culated (SpectrumTM software) and used as reference.
For the calculation of the DC, the spectra of the cured
samples were measured in the following manner: The disk
shaped specimens (n = 6 per material and storage condition)
were placed onto the crystal and fixed with the ATR unit’s
movable arm at maximum force (150 units) to achieve as close
as possible contact between the specimen surface and the

Fig. 2 – Scatter plots for the results obtained for FS (a), FM (b) and DC (c) for Cronmix tembridge. Logarithmic regression line
added. The r2 are presented on top of the diagram (significant for all groups: p < 0.001).
1578 d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 2 3 ( 2 0 0 7 ) 1574–1583

crystal for optimal recording. On each specimen, spectra were
collected at three different spots (6 scans per spot). Mean
spectrum of all 18 measurements was calculated (SpectrumTM
software). The FTIR spectra were collected after 10 min, 4 h,
24 h storage and TC (Table 2) as the mechanical proper-
ties tests had shown the most significant changes in these
intervals.
A baseline was determined for each material (range: 1670
and 1580 cm−1 ) in the uncured state as well as after the various
storage conditions (cured). The baseline was used to deter-
mine the relative peak height (rPH) of absorbance intensity of
the aliphatic C C peak (1638 cm−1 ) as well as aromatic C. . .C
peak (1609 cm−1 ) as internal reference (Fig. 1) [18,19]. The DC
(%) was calculated as the quotient of the rPHs determined for
the cured versus uncured materials according the following
equation [20]:
 
cured (rPH C C/rPH aromatic C . . . C)
DC (%)= 1−
uncured (rPH C C/rPH aromatic C . . . C
2.4. Statistical analysis
A logarithmic regression analysis (p = 0.05) was applied and r2
values were calculated to describe the relationship between
storage time (t-EoM = time after EoM) and the results obtained
for FS, FM and DC, respectively. Additionally, the relative val-
ues for FS, FM and DC were calculated, defining the numeric
values obtained after TC as 100% to directly compare the three
properties tested by omitting the different units.
All data sets were subjected to the Kolmogorov–Smirnov
test to check for normal distribution (p = 0.05) and the Lev-
ene test to check the homogeneity of variances (p = 0.05).
As test results revealed for all test groups, normal distribu-
tion still not homogeneity of variances, parametric statistics
(Games–Howell test: p = 0.05) were applied to identify signif-
icant differences between the materials within each storage
condition.
× 100%
3. Results

Mean values and standard deviations for the DC were Figs. 2–5 show the scatter plots of the values obtained for
calculated. FS, FM and DC. A logarithmic relationship was noted for

Fig. 3 – Scatter plots for the results obtained for FS (a), FM (b) and DC (c) for Protemp 3 Garant. Logarithmic regression line
added. The r2 are presented on top of the diagram (significant for all groups: p < 0.001).
 d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 2 3 ( 2 0 0 7 ) 1574–1583 1579

Fig. 4 – Scatter plots for the results obtained for FS (a), FM (b) and DC (c) for Structur Premium. Logarithmic regression line
added. The r2 are presented on top of the diagram (significant for all groups: p < 0.001).

all properties tested. A very strong correlation was observed

for the relationship between t-EoM versus FS and t-EoM
versus FM for all materials tested. In contrast, the correla-
tion between t-EoM versus DC varied between moderate and
strong.
Considering the relative values for all properties in
direct comparison, DC already reached >75–87% of its
maximum 10 min after EoM, whereas the mechanical prop-
erties showed the same increase later (FS: 2–8 h; FM:
16–72 h).
Table 3 shows the mean values and standard deviations
of the properties tested in the four test groups including
the results of the Games–Howell test. All materials showed
low mechanical strength 10 min after EoM. Structur Premium
showed significantly higher mechanical strength (FS and FM)
compared to all other materials tested (p < 0.05) at all storage
times, whereas its DC was significantly lower (p < 0.05). Regard-
ing the absolute values for FS, FM and DC, CronMix tembridge
and Systemp. c&b showed similar results, although statisti-
cal differences were observed between the materials at some
storage times.
4. Discussion
The mechanical stability of t-c&bs is important to prevent fail-
ure of a temporary restoration directly from the beginning
after fabrication and insertion. However, very little informa-
tion is available on this subject in the current literature.
Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the mechanical
properties of t-c&bs after different storage times starting at an
early stage following mixing. Beyond that experimental ques-
tion, it was of high interest to test, whether the mechanical
properties are reflected by the DC as this parameter might
influence the longevity of the restoration [16].
The time intervals and storage conditions selected aimed
to simulate the clinical use of t-c&bs. A temporary restora-
tion is mostly fabricated directly chair-side, consequently the
restoration is fitted immediately after fabrication. From practi-
cal experience, this procedure takes no longer than 10–30 min
after the end of mixing.
The 10 min setting under dry conditions was selected to
standardize the initial setting process. It might be discussed
1580 d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 2 3 ( 2 0 0 7 ) 1574–1583

Fig. 5 – Scatter plots for the results obtained for FS (a), FM (b) and DC (c) for Systemp. c&b. Logarithmic regression line added.
The r2 are presented on top of the diagram (significant for all groups: p < 0.001).

that – in the clinical situation – the t-c&b comes in contact
with humidity at this early stage. However, using the com-
mon fabrication technique for temporaries, i.e. the silicon
over-impression technique [1], the silicone seals the gingival
areas against humidity. Consequently, the amount of humid-
ity, which reaches the t-c&b, is expected to be rather small.
4.1. Mechanical properties
al. [6] showed a significant decrease in mechanical properties
over a storage period of 60 days at 37 ◦ C for the dual-curing
material Provipont. However, no explanation was given for
this observation. In addition, it is questionable if the materials,
which they used 10 years ago, are comparable to the contem-
porary ones concerning their composition and performance.
It is hypothesized, that the differences in mechanical prop-
erties are mainly related to the monomer system used, as the
filler content was very similar for all materials tested.

All materials showed low mechanical strengths 10 min after

mixing. The FS was <24% and the FM <7% of the final values.
The biggest increase (>50% of the final values) was observed
after 1 h (FS) and 2 h (FM), respectively.
A direct comparison with results from other studies is
hardly possible due to differences in materials and methodol-
ogy. Haselton et al. [7] investigated the FS of 13 methacrylate
and Bis-acryl-based t-c&bs, respectively, in a 3-point bending
test after 10 days storage at 37 ◦ C. They concluded that the FS
is material-dependent. This is confirmed by our results, as the
FS varied greatly between 68 and 117 MPa after TC.
The positive correlation between storage time and
mechanical properties, observed in our investigation, con-
firms the results of other studies [12,21]. In contrast, Ireland et
4.2. FTIR analysis
The DC of a restorative material can be of critical importance
for both the mechanical properties and longevity of a restora-
tion [15,16]. The DC in self-curing composites in turn depends
on a couple of variables regarding the materials’ composition
in particular the type of monomers used as well as the ini-
tiator and inhibitor concentration [22,23]. The filler content in
turn reportedly is of minor influence [24,25].
FTIR analysis is an accepted method to determine the DC
in resin-based materials and has been used for this purpose in
many studies [18,20–22,24–27]. For the present study, a couple
of pilot experiments were conducted in advance to identify
 d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 2 3 ( 2 0 0 7 ) 1574–1583 1581

Table 3 – Mean values and standard deviations (in parentheses) for all materials after different storage times
Group Test CronMix tembridge Protemp 3 Garant Structur Premium Systemp. c&b

10 min FS [MPa] 15.1 (0.5)a 14.5 (1.3)a 24.5 (2.4)b 16.7 (0.9)c
FM [MPa] 96.1 (7.1)a 120.8 (20.4)b 211.2 (34.6)c 114.9 (10.3)b
DC [%] 57.7 (3.4)a 63.6 (4.1)a,b 42.2 (3.9)c 69.8 (1.9)b

1h FS [MPa] 43.1 (1.9)a 50.1 (1.9)b 74.7 (3.0)c 46.0 (1.9)d

FM [MPa] 899.0 (51.4)a 1200.0 (76.7)b 1761.6 (292.8)c 834.4 (68.9)a
DC [%] n.a.# n.a. n.a. n.a.

2h FS [MPa] 46.8 (2.7)a 56.5 (2.5)b 77.2 (5.5)c 53.1 (2.7)d

FM [MPa] 984.8 (97.2)a 1462.1 (114.9)b 1920.2 (207.4)c 1207.7 (84.0)d
DC [%] n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

4h FS [MPa] 50.3 (2.5)a 61.4 (2.9)b 83.4 (3.3)c 57.5 (4.1)b

FM [MPa] 1155.7 (84.1)a 1646.7 (95.3)b 2139.3 (153.8)c 1257.4 (136.3)a
DC [%] 71.2 (3.9)a,b 65.4 (3.4)a 46.2 (4.5)c 71.9 (0.9)b

8h FS [MPa] 54.6 (3.3)a 66.8 (1.4)b 87.0 (5.2)c 56.2 (2.9)a

FM [MPa] 1242.9 (68.6)a 1760.1 (80.6)b 2250.1 (137.1)c 1368.2 (94.5)d
DC [%] n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

16 h FS [MPa] 56.8 (3.1)a 74.0 (2.2)b 100.1 (3.4)c 58.9 (4.4)a

FM [MPa] 1345.2 (95.7)a 2065.3 (123.2)b 2701.5 (113.4)c 1663.0 (83.4)d
DC [%] n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

24 h FS [MPa] 56.4 (3.7)a 75.7 (1.5)b 100.7 (3.4)c 65.1 (3.5)d

FM [MPa] 1360.6 (117.5)a 2129.4 (110.3)b 2762.2 (111.9)c 1721.4 (140.8)d
DC [%] 70.9 (3.3)a,b 67.0 (2.6)b 51.4 (2.4)c 74.0 (0.7)a

3 days FS [MPa] 60.1 (2.4)a 76.8 (4.6)b 109.6 (8.8)c 65.3 (3.9)d
FM [MPa] 1481.4 (106.6)a 2172.9 (143.1)b 2664.6 (320.4)c 1908.5 (89.1)d
DC [%] n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

TC FS [MPa] 67.7 (5.0)a 88.8 (3.7)b 116.7 (5.2)c 68.5 (6.4)a

FM [MPa] 1961.3 (104.8)a 2676.4 (153.8)b 3615.1 (87.3)c 2091.7 (185.4)a
DC [%] 76.5 (4.7)a 75.5 (5.9)a 55.6 (2.8)b 79.9 (3.2)a

Same superscript letters (related to rows) denote material groups which were not significantly different (Games–Howell test: p > 0.05).
#
Not analyzed.

the best baseline method for quantification of the DC [18]. It
turned out that calculating the absorbance ratio between the
aliphatic C C peak and the aromatic C. . .C peak (=relative peak
height) delivered the smallest standard deviations.
All materials showed a distinct absorbance peak at
1609 ± 1 cm−1 [19] which indicates the use of Bis-GMA or Bis-
acrylates as at least one of the monomer components. The
double bonds of these high-molecular-weight monomers are
not converted completely during the course of polymeriza-
tion. This is believed due to the loss of mobility and decreased
reactivity of the polymer radicals in the highly viscous poly-
meric network after setting [25]. The DC of Bis-GMA-based,
self-curing composites reportedly varies between 43 and 80%
[15,20,22,25,28,29]. This is in perfect agreement with our find-
ings.
The DC was at a very high level already 10 min after mix-
ing for all materials tested, whereas the mechanical strength
was very low at this point in time. This is in agreement with
a report of Ferracane [21], who found the greatest increase
of DC within the first 10 min after mixing for three propri-
etary unfilled dental resins. When comparing the increase
in values for the DC versus mechanical properties over time,
it is obvious that the DC slope is much flatter indicating
that the mechanical properties lag behind the DC. Simi-
lar results were obtained also for Knoop hardness values
[21].
Three possible theories (individually or combined) might
explain this phenomenon: (1) after mixing, the poly-
meric chains grow continuously resulting in high-molecular
oligomers. The growth of these oligomers may have already
consumed a high amount of double bonds in a very early stage
after curing expressed by a high DC. However, mechanical sta-
bility might still be low due to a lag of crosslinking between
these oligomers. At progressed points in time, increase of only
a small amount of additional crosslinks are capable to link a
huge amount of high-molecular oligomers together to a rigid
polymer, leading to a substantial increase in mechanical prop-
erties [30]. It has to be mentioned, that crosslinking density is
not equivalent to DC [21]. (2) During the course of polymeriza-
tion, a high amount of stress is created inside the polymeric
network, which makes it susceptible to fracture. During stor-
age at elevated temperatures (37 ◦ C, TC), a huge proportion
of these stresses may diminish due to relaxation processes
inside the material by reconfiguration and rearrangement of
polymer chains resulting in higher resistance against external
forces [31]. (3) Free radicals may remain in the composite over
a time period of 7 days. Especially at elevated temperatures
the mobility of the polymer chains increase, allowing creation
of additional crosslinking points [32].
It has to be taken in consideration that the TC involves
both—a longer storage time and increased temperatures,
which affects the mechanical properties as well as the DC.
1582 d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 2 3 ( 2 0 0 7 ) 1574–1583
However, further investigations are highly desirable to clearly
relate the phenomenon observed to one or more of the theo-
ries, as no clear conclusions can be drawn in this respect from
the current investigation.
Surprisingly, Structur Premium showed the lowest DC
though of the highest mechanical strength. Consequently, DC
does not explain the high strength of this t-c&b. It might be
speculated that this observation is based on the use of mul-
tifunctional monomers with more than two reactive double
bonds per molecule. The use of such molecules reportedly
leads to higher reaction rates and density of crosslinks and at
the same time to a reduced DC [23,30]. This would explain the
steep increase of the mechanical properties for Structur Pre-
mium on the one hand and its low DC on the other. Another
possible explanation is a distinct fine-tuning between initiator
and inhibitor concentration, as this ratio reportedly strongly
influences the DC [22]. Finally, it is well known that the mixing
ratio between Bis-GMA and dilution monomers (e.g. TEGDMA)
influences both, the mechanical properties as well as the DC.
Substitution of TEGDMA in favor of Bis-GMA leads to a stiffer
network (increase in mechanical strength) [22,28] and at the
same time to a lower DC [15,26,28,29,33]. The scattering of DC
in between the remaining three materials (Protemp 3 Garant,
CronMix tembridge and Systemp. c&b) might be attributed to
the latter principle.
Additionally, the question arises, if the filler content might
have influenced the DC of the different materials. This is, how-
ever, rather unlikely since filler content reportedly has a minor
influence on the DC [24] on the one hand and was rather sim-
ilar for all materials on the other.
Summarizing the observations, a correlation between DC
and mechanical properties is material dependent and sup-
ports the observation from Chung and Greener [25].
5. Conclusions
In summary, both parts of the null hypothesis have to be
rejected. The mechanical properties significantly depend on
the time after mixing. The DC does only partially reflect the
mechanical stability of a t-c&b material; hence, DC does not
allow drawing conclusions about the mechanical properties
equally for all materials.
Dentists should be aware of the fact that the mechanical
stability of temporary crowns is comparably low in the first
hours after fabrication and should advice patients carefully to
chew on temporary restorations.
Acknowledgements
We like to thank Dr. Jürgen Riehl for his assistance with the
statistical analysis. Additionally, the authors appreciate the
donation of the materials supplied by the respective manu-
facturers.
references
[1] Provisional restorations.Shillingburg HT, Sumiya H, Lowell
DW, Jacobi R, Brackett SE, editors. Fundamentals of fixed
prosthodontics. 3rd ed. Chicago: Quintessence; 1997. p.
225–56.
[2] Burns DR, Beck DA, Nelson SK. A review of selected dental
literature on contemporary provisional fixed prosthodontic
treatment: report of the Committee on Research in Fixed
Prosthodontics of the Academy of Fixed Prosthodontics. J
Prosthet Dent 2003;90:474–97.
[3] Gough M. A review of temporary crowns and bridges. Dent
Update 1994;21:203–7.
[4] Rosenstiel S, Fujimoto J, Land MF. Contemporary fixed
prosthodontics. 3rd ed. Mosby; 2004.
[5] Young HM, Smith CT, Morton D. Comparative in vitro
evaluation of two provisional restorative materials. J
Prosthet Dent 2001;85:129–32.
[6] Ireland MF, Dixon DL, Breeding LC, Ramp MH. In vitro
mechanical property comparison of four resins used for
fabrication of provisional fixed restorations. J Prosthet Dent
1998;80:158–62.
[7] Haselton DR, Diaz Arnold AM, Vargas MA. Flexural strength
of provisional crown and fixed partial denture resins. J
Prosthet Dent 2002;87:225–8.
[8] Lang R, Rosentritt M, Behr M, Handel G. Fracture resistance
of PMMA and resin matrix composite-based interim FPD
materials. Int J Prosthodont 2003;16:381–4.
[9] Kaeyser AF, Creugers NH, Plasmans PJ, Postema N, Snoek PA.
Kronen-und Brückenprothetik: Behandlungsplanung,
Indikation, Ausführung, Langzeitbewährung. 1st ed. Koeln:
Deutscher Aerzte Verlag; 1997.
[10] Craig RG. Craig’s restorative dental materials. 12th ed. St.
Louis: Mosby Elsevier; 2006.
[11] Hamza TA, Rosenstiel SF, Elhosary MM, Ibraheem RM. The
effect of fiber reinforcement on the fracture toughness and
flexural strength of provisional restorative resins. J Prosthet
Dent 2004;91:258–64.
[12] Koumjian JH, Nimmo A. Evaluation of fracture resistance of
resins used for provisional restorations. J Prosthet Dent
1990;64:654–7.
[13] Osman YI, Owen CP. Flexural strength of provisional
restorative materials. J Prosthet Dent 1993;70:94–6.
[14] Rosentritt M, Behr M, Lang R, Handel G. Flexural properties
of prosthetic provisional polymers. Eur J Prosthodont Restor
Dent 2004;12:75–9.
[15] Ferracane JL, Greener EH. The effect of resin formulation on
the degree of conversion and mechanical properties of
dental restorative resins. J Biomed Mater Res 1986;20:121–31.
[16] Lovell LG, Berchtold KA, Elliott JE, Lu H, Bowman CN.
Understanding the kinetics and network formation of
dimethacrylat dental resins. Polym Adv Technol
2001;12:335–45.
[17] International Standard. EN ISO 4049.
Dentistry—polymer-based filling, restorative and luting
materials. Berlin: Beuth; 2000.
[18] Rueggeberg FA, Hashinger DT, Fairhurst CW. Calibration of
FTIR conversion analysis of contemporary dental resin
composites. Dent Mater 1990;6:241–9.
[19] Coates J. Interpretation of infrared spectra, a pratical
approach. In: Meyers RA, editor. Enyclopedia of analytical
chemistry. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 2000. p.
10815–37.
[20] Ferracane JL, Greener EH. Fourier transform infrared
analysis of degree of polymerization in unfilled
resins—methods comparison. J Dent Res 1984;63:
1093–5.
[21] Ferracane JL. Correlation between hardness and degree of
conversion during the setting reaction of unfilled dental
restorative resins. Dent Mater 1985;1:11–4.
[22] Asmussen E. Factors affecting the quantity of remaining
double bonds in restorative resin polymers. Scand J Dent Res
1982;90:490–6.
 d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 2 3 ( 2 0 0 7 ) 1574–1583
[23] Dietz EJ, Peppas NA. Reaction kinetics and chemical changes
during polymerization of multifunctional (meth)acrylates
for the production of highly crosslinked polymers. Polymer
1997;38:3767–81.
[24] Atai M, Watts DC. A new kinetic model for the
photopolymerization shrinkage-strain of dental composites
and resin-monomers. Dent Mater 2006;22:785–91.
[25] Chung KH, Greener EH. Correlation between degree of
conversion, filler concentration and mechanical properties
of posterior composite resins. J Oral Rehabil 1990;17:487–94.
[26] Feilzer AJ, Dauvillier BS. Effect of TEGDMA/BisGMA ratio on
stress development and viscoelastic properties of
experimental two-paste composites. J Dent Res
2003;82:824–8.
[27] Palin WM, Fleming GJ, Burke FJ, Marquis PM, Randall RC.
Monomer conversion versus flexure strength of a novel
dental composite. J Dent 2003;31:341–51.
1583
[28] Peutzfeldt A. Resin composites in dentistry: the monomer
systems. Eur J Oral Sci 1997;105:97–116.
[29] Ruyter IE, Oysaed H. Composites for use in posterior teeth:
composition and conversion. J Biomed Mater Res
1987;21:11–23.
[30] Andrzejewska E. Photopolymerization kinetics of
multifunctional monomers. Prog Polym Sci 2001;26:605–55.
[31] Anusavic KJ. Phillips’ science of dental materials. 6th ed. St.
Louis: Saunders; 2003.
[32] Ferracane JL, Condon JR. Post-cure heat treatments for
composites: properties and fractography. Dent Mater
1992;8:290–5.
[33] Ruyter IE, Svendsen SA. Remaining methacrylate groups in
composite restorative materials. Acta Odontol Scand
1978;36:75–82.