Home Print this page Email this page   Users Online: 96

 

Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2016  |  Volume : 4  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 51-55

Comparative evaluation of hardness of four provisional restorative materials: An in vitro study


1 Department of Prosthodontics, Mamata Dental College and Hospitals, Khammam, Telangana, India
2 Department of Prosthodontics, Rajarajeswari Dental College, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India
3 Department of Prosthodontics, Sri Sai College of Dental Surgery, Vikarabad, Telangana, India

Correspondence Address:
Muralidhar Reddy Pereddy
Department of Prosthodontics, Mamata Dental College and Hospitals, Khammam - 507 002, Telangana
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/EJP.EJP_29_16

Rights and Permissions

Purpose: The present in vitro study was conducted to evaluate and compare the hardness of four commercially available provisional restorative materials. Materials and Methods: The groups in the study were Protemp 4 group, Integrity group, Systemp C and B group, and Structure 2SC group ten specimens of dimensions 64 mm × 3.5 mm × 12.3 mm × 65 mm × 13.5 mm of each material was made. Moreover, a total of forty specimens were used in the study and were tested for micro hardness and the values obtained were evaluated. One-way analysis of variance was applied to the data, and post hoc test was carried out for intercomparison between groups. Results: The findings showed that mean hardness value of Protemp 4 which had the highest value of 65.990 Vickers hardness number (VHN) followed by integrity 60.300 VHN followed by 57.210 VHN in Structure 2SC and least of 56.520 VHN in System C and B group and it was found to be statistically significant. The post hoc test revealed there was evident between Voco (Structure 2SC) and Systemp C and B materials; there was no statistical difference in mean hardness of the material in comparison with Protemp 4 and Integrity. Conclusion: Protemp 4 showed the highest hardness followed by integrity, Structure 2SC and Systemp C and B.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed658    
    Printed12    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded247    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal