CLINICAL STUDIES OF MATERIALS FOR TEMPORARY REMOVABLE PROSTHESIS
One of the important parts of the temporary prosthesis is to develop new polymeric materials dental appointment with a given combination of required properties: antibacterial activity, reduced shrinkage, high strength and adhesive properties.
To make an effective choice of material should we must have complete information not only about their mechanical and chemical, but also about their clinical characteristics too.
Clinical studies consider aspects such as process manufacturing, fitting, setting temporary cement, the development of dental plaque, gingivitis, color resistance and subjective perception provisionally material as doctor and patient.
Declared in dental literature light curing mechanical properties of composite materials and dual-curing is not always supported by the inconvenience for manual processing. Due to the polymerization shrinkage inherent in these materials, it is difficult to achieve accuracy between occlusal relationships. For this reason, all materials look better than subjective evaluation of the work performed dentist than according to their mechanical properties or opinions patient.
In writings  investigated the marginal fit and color fastness structures of the two self-curing materials "Protemp Garant" and "Integrity", a dual-curing composite "Luxatemp Solar", using material of polymethylmethacrylate "SNAP" as a control. Provisional material dual cure "Luxatemp Solar" showed more rejection edges fit than bisacryl materials or "SNAP". In "Protemp Garant" hue change observed after 1 week stay in solution of tea, although other materials did not show clinically significant changes.
Extra embryonic materials have antibacterial properties. We investigated the antibacterial properties "Revotek", "Tempit", "Systemp" and "IRM" immediately after curing at 1, 7, 14 and 30 days of aging in artificial saliva solution in phosphate buffer . Structures "Tempit", "Systemp" and "IRM" showed antibacterial properties in contact with S. mutans at least 7 days, and "Tempit" and "IRM" supported this resolution 14 days. In contact with E. faecalis "Tempit" and "IRM" have antibacterial properties immediately after hardening. "IRM" to save this property just 1 day. Thus revealed different material properties that can affect what microorganisms are able to penetrate into the root canal system.
Bacterial adhesion and formation of dental plaque manifests itself during gingival inflammation and the development of secondary caries. Researchers compared the state of surface hydrophobicity and 10 temporary fixation materials of different composition, as well as their ability to perceive Streptococcus mutans . Number of different bacterial adhesion to all materials applied provisionally. High fluorescence intensity (> 10,000) was found for "Snap", "UniFastLC" and "CronMix K plus", the average values (5000-10,000) for the "Trim", "Temphase", "Structur Premium" and "PreVISION CB" and the lowest fluorescence intensity (<5000) were found for "Cronsin", "Protemp" and "Luxatemp". Streptococci monolayers corresponding initial bacterial adhesion were found in all studied surfaces.
To reduce the negative impact of high polymerization temperature better use previous silicone impression because impression materials takes too much heat. This aspect is particularly important if there is a large middle part of the design and replaced a large amount of hard substance of the tooth (crown thick walls).
2. Tjan A. H. Marginal fidelity of crowns fabricated from six proprietary provisional materials / A. H. Tjan, J. Castelnuovo, G. Shiotsu // J. Prosthet. Dent. – 1997. – Vоl. 77. – P. 482–485.
3. Knoernschild K. L. Periodontal tissue responses after insertion of artificial crowns and fixed partial dentures / K. L. Knoernschild, S. D. Campbell // J. Prosthet. Derit. – 2000. – Vоl. 77. 84(5). – P. 492–498.
4. Bohlsen F. Clinical outcome of glass-fiber-reinforced crowns and fixed partial dentures: a three-year retrospective study / F. Bohlsen, M. Kern // Quintessence Int. – 2003. – Vоl. 34(7). – P. 493–496.
5. Burke F. J. T. Clinical evaluation Protemp Garant / F. J. T. Burke // Dental Practice. – 1996. – Vоl.7. – P. 13–16.
6. Lowe R. A. The art and science of provisionalization / R. A. Lowe // Int. J. Periodontics Restorative Dent. – 1987. – Vоl.7(3). – P. 299–304.
7. Mancuso A. Provisionalization of the anterior aesthetic case / A. Mancuso // Dent. Today. – 2000. – Vоl.19(2). – P. 88–89.
8. Nejatidanesh F. Marginal accuracy of interim restorations fabricated from four interim autopolymerizing resins / F. Nejatidanesh, H. R. Lotfi, O. Savabi // J. Prosthet. Dent. – 2006. – Vоl.95(5). – P. 364–367.
9. Clinical performance and periodontal outcome of temporary crowns and fixed partial dentures: A randomized clinical trial / [R. G. Luthardt, M. Stossel, M. Hinz et al.] // J. Prosthet. Dent. – 2000. – Vоl.83(1). – P. 32–39.
10. Klinische Studie zur Qualitat und Verrbeitung temporarer Kronen- und Bruckenkunststoffe / [R. G. Luthardt, M. Stossel, M. Hinz et al.] // Dtsch. Zahnarzti. Z. – 1998. – Vоl.53(9). – P. 633–638.
11. Bakterielle Besied-lung der Oberflache von provisorischen Kronen und Brucken / [S. Mues, E. H. Helfgen, H. Stark et al.] // DZZ. – 2008. – Vоl.63(3). –P. 201–205.
12. Mues S. Oberflachenvergutung von provisorischen Kronen und Bracken / S. Mues // Quintessenz. – 2008. – Vоl.59(4). – P. 371–378.
13. Marginal adaptation and color stability of four provisional materials / E. J. Givens, G. Neiva, P. Yaman [et al.] // J. Prosthodont. – 2008. – Vоl.17(2). – Р. 97–101.
14. Antibacterial properties of temporary filling materials / H. Slutzky, I. Slutzky-Goldberg, E. I. Weiss [et al.] // J. Endod. – 2006. – Vоl.32(3). – P. 214–217.
15. Buergers R. Bacterial adhesion of Streptococcus mutans to provisional fixed prosthodontic material / R. Buergers, M. Rosentritt, G. Handel // J. Prosthet. Dent. – 2007. – Vоl.98(6). – P. 461–469.
16. Effect of dentin adhesives used as sealers and provisional cementation on bond strength of a resin cement to dentin / [N. Chieffi, F. Sadek, F. Monticelli et al.] // Am. J. Dent. – 2006. – Vоl.19(2). – P. 91–95.