International Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 12 , ISSUE 2 ( April-June, 2022 ) > List of Articles


Comparison of Fracture Resistance of Three-unit Provisional Fixed Dental Prostheses Fabricated Using Conventional and Digital Methods

Shweta Bhambhu, Shubhi Sahni, Narendra Padiyar, Pragati Kaurani

Keywords : Bridge, Computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing, Fracture resistance, Provisionalization, Provisional restoration, Three-dimensional printing

Citation Information : Bhambhu S, Sahni S, Padiyar N, Kaurani P. Comparison of Fracture Resistance of Three-unit Provisional Fixed Dental Prostheses Fabricated Using Conventional and Digital Methods. Int J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2022; 12 (2):59-63.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10019-1363

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 25-01-2023

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2022; The Author(s).


Purpose: To compare the fracture resistance of three-unit (3-unit) provisional fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) fabricated using conventional, computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) and three-dimensional (3D) printing methods. Materials and methods: Mandibular right second premolar and second molar typodont teeth were prepared and a metal die was fabricated. Five specimens of each 3-unit FDP were fabricated using self-cure (conventional), with 3D printing and CAD/CAM techniques. Specimens were placed on the universal testing machine and subjected to an axial load. The maximum force which led to the fracture of the FDP was recorded. Tukey's test for pairwise comparison of fracture strength was used and a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used for intergroup. Results: Maximum fracture resistance was seen in the CAD/CAM group (2510.3 N), followed by 3D printed (2182.9 N), and least in the self-cure group (1940.9 N). ANOVA for intergroup comparison showed a statistically significant difference in fracture resistance between the three groups (p < 0.001). A statistically significant difference in fracture resistance via post hoc Tukey's was seen in group I and group II (p < 0.001), and between group II and group III (p = 0.015). There was no significant difference found in between group I and group III (p > 0.05). Conclusion: Computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing milled and 3D printed 3-unit provisional FDP showed significantly better fracture resistance compared to the conventional FDP. Interim restorations fabricated using these advanced techniques provide stronger, more reliable, and conservatively produced provisional restorations.

PDF Share
  1. Digholkar S, Madhav VN, Palaskar J. Evaluation of the flexural strength and microhardness of provisional crown and bridge materials fabricated by different methods. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2016;16(4):328–334. DOI: 10.4103/0972-4052.191288
  2. Shillinburg HT, Hobo S, Whitsett LD, et al. Fundamentals of fixed prosthodontics. 4th ed. Chicago, IL: Quintessence Publishing Co. Inc 1997. p. 225–256.
  3. Gratton DG, Aquilino SA. Interim restorations. Dent Clin North Am 2004;48(2):487–497. DOI: 10.1016/j.cden.2003.12.007
  4. Abad-Coronel C, Carrera E, Mena Córdova N, et al. Comparative analysis of fracture resistance between CAD/CAM materials for interim fixed prosthesis. Materials (Basel) 2021;14(24):7791. DOI: 10.3390/ma14247791
  5. Tahayeri A, Morgan M, Fugolin AP, et al. 3D printed versus conventionally cured provisional crown and bridge dental materials. Dent Mater 2018;34(2):192–200. DOI: 10.1016/
  6. Singla M, Padmaja K, Arora J, et al. provisional restorations in fixed prosthodontics. Int J Dent Med Res 2014;1(4):148–151.
  7. Miura S, Fujisawa M, Komine F, et al. Importance of interim restorations in the molar region. J Oral Sci 2019;61(2):195–199. DOI: 10.2334/josnusd.19-0102
  8. Skorulska A, Piszko P, Rybak Z, et al. Review on polymer, ceramic and composite materials for CAD/CAM indirect restorations in dentistry-application, mechanical characteristics and comparison. Materials (Basel) 2021;14(7):1592. DOI: 10.3390/ma14071592
  9. Lambert H, Durand JC, Jacquot B, et al. Dental biomaterials for chairside CAD/CAM: State of the art. J Adv Prosthodont 2017;9(6):486–495. DOI: 10.4047/jap.2017.9.6.486
  10. Rekow ED. Dental CAD/CAM systems: a 20-year success story. J Am Dent Assoc 2006;137 (Suppl 1):5S–6S. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2006.0396
  11. Güth JF, Almeida E Silva JS, Beuer F F, et al. Enhancing the predictability of complex rehabilitation with a removable CAD/CAM-fabricated long-term provisional prosthesis: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2012;107(1):1–6. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(11)00171-5
  12. Regish KM, Sharma D, Prithviraj DR. Techniques of fabrication of provisional restoration: an overview. Int J Dent 2011;2011:134659. DOI: 10.1155/2011/134659
  13. Rayyan MM, Aboushelib M, Sayed NM, et al. Comparison of interim restorations fabricated by CAD/CAM with those fabricated manually. J Prosthet Dent 2015;114(3):414–419. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.03.007
  14. Poticny DJ, Klim J. CAD/CAM in-office technology: innovations after 25 years for predictable, esthetic outcomes. J Am Dent Assoc 2010;141(Suppl 2):5S–9S. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2010.0356
  15. Astudillo-Rubio D, Delgado-Gaete A, Bellot-Arcís C, et al. Mechanical properties of provisional dental materials: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2018;13(2):e0193162. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0193162
  16. Kang SY, Park JH, Kim JH, et al. Accuracy of provisional crowns made using stereolithography apparatus and subtractive technique. J Adv Prosthodont 2018;10(5):354–360. DOI: 10.4047/jap.2018.10.5.354
  17. Federick DR. The provisional fixed partial denture. J Prosthet Dent 1975;34(5):520–526. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(75)90039-6
  18. Mantri SS, Bhasin A. CAD/CAM in dental restorations: an overview. Ann Essences Dent 2010;2(3):123–128. DOI: 10.5368/aedj.2010.2.3.123-128.pdf
  19. Ibrahim A, Shehawy DE, Naggar GE. Fracture resistance of interim restoration constructed by 3D printing versus CAD/CAM technique (in vitro study). ASDJ 2020; 19:13–20.
  20. Li RW, Chow TW, Matinlinna JP. Ceramic dental biomaterials and CAD/CAM technology: state of the art. J Prosthodont Res 2014;58(4):208–216. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpor.2014.07.003
  21. Al Jabbari YS, Al-Rasheed A, Smith JW, et al. An indirect technique for assuring simplicity and marginal integrity of provisional restorations during full mouth rehabilitation. Saudi Dent J 2013;25(1):39–42. DOI: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2012.10.003
  22. Rocca GT, Bonnafous F, Rizcalla N, et al. A technique to improve the esthetic aspects of CAD/CAM composite resin restorations. J Prosthet Dent 2010;104(4):273–275. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(10)60138-2
  23. Yao J, Li J, Wang Y, et al. Comparison of the flexural strength and marginal accuracy of traditional and CAD/CAM interim materials before and after thermal cycling. J Prosthet Dent 2014;112(3):649–657. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.01.012
  24. Alp G, Murat S, Yilmaz B. Comparison of flexural strength of different CAD/CAM PMMA-based polymers. J Prosthodont 2019;28(2):e491–e495. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.12755
  25. Nejatidanesh F, Momeni G, Savabi O. Flexural strength of interim resin materials for fixed prosthodontics. J Prosthodont 2009;18(6):507–511. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2009.00473.x
  26. Alt V, Hannig M, Wöstmann B, et al. Fracture strength of temporary fixed partial dentures: CAD/CAM versus directly fabricated restorations. Dent Mater 2011;27(4):339–347. DOI: 10.1016/
  27. Edelhoff D, Beuer F, Schweiger J, et al. CAD/CAM-generated high-density polymer restorations for the pretreatment of complex cases: a case report. Quintessence Int 2012;43(6):457–467.
  28. Karaokutan I, Sayin G, Kara O. In vitro study of fracture strength of provisional crown materials. J Adv Prosthodont 2015;7(1):27–31. DOI: 10.4047/jap.2015.7.1.27
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.