SCIENCE
Pablo J. Atria, Isabel Lagos, Camila S. Sampaio
In vitro evaluation of surface roughness, color stability, and color
masking of provisional restoration materials for veneers and
crowns
Abstract
Aim: To evaluate surface roughness (SR), color stability (CS),
and color masking as assessed through the relative translu-
cency parameter (RTP) of different provisional restoration ma-
terials before and after water thermocycling (TC).
Materials and methods: Four different provisional materials
were selected: acrylic resin, bis-acryl resin, polymethyl meth-
acrylate (PMMA) CAD/CAM blocks, and 3D-printed provision-
al resin. Samples of 0.6- and 1.3-mm thickness were obtained,
and SR, CS, and RTP were determined before and after the
samples were submitted to 6000 cycles of TC. A rugosimeter
was used to assess SR. Color was determined on white and
black backgrounds before and after TC, and color masking
was assessed through RTP. CS was determined using a spec-
trophotometer with the CIEDE2000 formula, before and after
TC.
Results: SR values before and after TC ranged from -0.01 to
0.28 for 1.3 mm, and from 0.00 to 0.38 for 0.6 mm, respect-
ively. CS (∆E00 values) ranged from 0.53 to 4.38 for 1.3 mm,
and from 0.70 to 5.66 for 0.6 mm, respectively. The highest
value was obtained for 3D-printed resin. Finally, for RTP val-
ues, the difference before and after TC ranged from -0.036 to
2.66 for 1.3 mm, and from 0.52 to 2.57 for 0.6 mm, respect-
ively, with the PMMA CAD/CAM block being the material with
the lowest values in both cases.
Conclusion: Values of SR, CS, and RTP varied among different
materials and thicknesses. The overall performance of
3D-printed resin was inferior to that of the other materials.
The PMMA CAD/CAM block obtained the overall best values
for the conditions tested.
Keywords: CAD/CAM, color science, dental materials, digital
dentistry
Introduction
Provisional materials are needed to maintain sound tissue
structures and acceptable esthetics during prosthodontic
International Journal of Computerized Dentistry 2020;23(4):343–350
treatment1. Sometimes, especially in complex cases, these
provisional restorations can be used as a diagnostic tool that
can help to determine the size, shape, location, and color of
the final restoration and its relationship to the surrounding
soft tissue1. Many provisional materials are currently available
on the market, although some of the newer materials lack sci-
entific background reporting regarding their esthetic and
overall functional performance over time.
With the advancement of the digital dentistry workflow
and the many different options of intraoral and extraoral
scanners, milling machines, and 3D printers, a wide variety of
materials have been developed by several manufacturers. In
addition, numerous applications have been proposed for
these new materials and technologies, ranging from surgical
guides to splints, orthodontic models, and implant-support-
ed as well as tooth-supported provisional restorations2. The
rapid emergence of hardware and materials occurred soon
after the expiration of certain patents that had protected var-
ious 3D-printing methods and manufacturers3.
3D-printing technologies can be classified according to
their fabrication process4, the most relevant for dental appli-
cations being additive manufacturing (AM), as opposed to
subtractive manufacturing (SM)5,6. AM is the process of creat-
ing objects from 3D model data by depositing a material
layer upon layer. There are several methods of 3D printing of
polymers, including fused deposition modeling (FDM),
stereolithography (SLA), digital light processing (DLP), selec-
tive layer sintering (SLS), and PolyJet technology5. DLP corre-
sponds to a vat polymerization technique, similar to SLA, that
uses a digital mask projection to create a particular pattern6.
DLP has become the most popular technology for 3D printers
used in dentistry because of its compatibility with a wide
range of commercially available resins.
Among other provisional materials available, the most
popular ones are based on autopolymerizing polymethyl
methacrylate (PMMA), bis-acryl, and micro-filled resins7,8. This
variety of materials can be used for short- or long-term provi-
sionalization, depending on the objective of the treatment
plan. Extended wearing times (more than 6 months) for these
provisional restorations are indicated for a variety of treat-
343
SCIENCE
ments, including changes to vertical dimension, palliative
prosthodontic treatment in cancer patients, exploring the
survival potential of abutment teeth with an unclear progno-
sis, among others9.
The oldest and most popular materials used for provi-
sional prostheses are autopolymerizing PMMAs, commonly
known as acrylic resins. The main advantages of these mater-
ials are their low cost and ease of repair. On the other hand,
their high exothermic properties and high shrinkage are two
major disadvantages, which have led to the development of
improved PMMA variants7. Bis-acryl resins are also commonly
used provisional materials and present good clinical perfor-
mance due to their lack of exothermic properties, good fit,
moderate color retention, and strength7.
Nowadays, high-density PMMA CAD/CAM is one of the
most widely used provisional materials due to its high
strength and good color stability (CS) over time, and also
because provisional restorations manufactured from PMMA
blocks designed for CAD/CAM application are relatively easy
and quick to obtain6. CAD/CAM PMMA materials are often
indicated when a long-term provisional restoration is need-
ed, eg, in full-mouth and implant rehabilitations.
On the other hand, the newly introduced material,
3D-printed resin, is becoming increasingly popular due to
several advantages related to its fabrication compared with
conventional techniques, including ease of learning and fast
acquisition of the digital files, avoidance of material waste
due to the AM method, and the ability to obtain multiple res-
torations without increasing their production time2,10. How-
ever, 3D-printed resin also presents some disadvantages, one
of them being that some manufacturers do not provide clin-
icians with sufficient information regarding manipulation and
post-curing processing and times, which directly affects the
immediate and long-term results11.
Material thickness, CS over time, roughness, and translu-
cency are key parameters that need to be taken into consid-
eration when executing definitive and provisional restor-
ations. Long-term provisionalization offers advantages for
clinicians because it allows for the evaluation of new esthet-
ic and functional parameters. For this reason it is important
to note that, according to reports, color change of the provi-
sional material compromises the acceptability of the restor-
ation12, which is closely related to surface roughness (SR),
which also compromises the material’s biocompatibility.
This means that a rough surface not only modifies the mate-
rial’s optical properties, but also might be a bacteria niche
that can compromise the predictability and final outcome of
the fixed restorations13,14. It is for this reason that these spe-
344
cific parameters are paramount and need to be taken into
account when selecting a provisional material8,15. Different
factors can have a detrimental effect on CS such as incom-
plete polymerization16, water sorption177, and SR18,19, among
others8.
Therefore, the aim of this study was to provide important
information regarding relevant characteristics of these mater-
ials: SR, CS, and color masking assessed through the relative
translucency parameter (RTP) of four provisional restoration
materials of two different thicknesses: 0.6 mm (for veneer
provisionalization), and 1.3 mm (for complete crown provi-
sionalization). The null hypotheses tested were that SR, CS,
and RTP would not be affected by either the material, its
thickness or water thermocycling (TC).
Materials and methods
Four different provisional restoration materials were tested
(n = 10 for each selected thickness): acrylic resin (Marche 66
shade; Marche, Santiago, Chile), bisacrylic resin (Protemp A2
shade; 3M ESPE, St Paul, MN, USA), PMMA CAD/CAM block
(TelioCAD A2 shade; Ivoclar Vivadent, Shaan, Liechtenstein),
and 3D-printed resin for provisional restorations (Raydent
C&B for temporary crown & bridge; 3DMaterials, Seoul,
Korea). Different thicknesses of 0.6 and 1.3 mm were deter-
mined, and materials were assigned into groups as follows:
G1: Marche 1.3 mm, G2: Protemp 1.3 mm, G3: TelioCAD
1.3 mm, G4: Raydent 1.3 mm, G5: Marche 0.6 mm, G6: Pro-
temp 0.6 mm, G7: TelioCAD 0.6 mm, G8: Raydent 0.6 mm.
Both the conventional acrylic resin and bis-acrylic samples
were fabricated using individual molds with specific dimen-
sions (1 mm, 1.7 mm, and 17.8 mm2) for each one of the
desired thicknesses (0.6 or 1.3 mm). Molds were fabricated
1 mm thicker, since samples underwent a polishing process
to obtain the desired final dimensions. PMMA CAD/CAM
blocks were cut with a slow-speed diamond blade (IsoMet
Diamond; Buehler, Düsseldorf, Germany) in a slicing machine
(Mecatone T180; Presi, Eybens, France).
3D-printed samples were designed using open source
software (Autodesk MeshMixer) prior to 3D printing. Samples
were saved as .STL files and exported into the 3D-printer soft-
ware (ANYCUBIC Photon Slicer) with the following para-
meters: Layer thickness 0.1 mm, normal exposure time 9 s,
bottom exposure time 60 s, and off time 6.5 s. This resulted in
a total of 159 layers. Several prints were performed in order to
determine the correct orientation of the samples, which
resulted in the samples being oriented completely vertically
International Journal of Computerized Dentistry 2020;23(4):343–350
 Atria et al

(Fig 1). After the samples were successfully printed, they were
washed with water according to the manufacturers’ instruc-
tions and placed into an ultraviolet (UV) light polymerization
device (Startec; ADJ, Shenzhen, China) at 405 nm and 38 W, at
room temperature (25˚C) for 30 min, making sure that the
object received the light from all angles to achieve uniform
polymerization. The final dimensions of the 3D-printed sam-
ples were 0.9 and 1.7 mm.
All specimens from the different groups underwent pol-
ishing under running water with sandpaper for 20 s each
(FEPA P500, P1000, P2500, and P4000), obtaining a final thick-k
ness of 0.6 and 1.3 mm. Thicknesses of the obtained speci-
mens were measured using a digital caliper. Specimens were
stored in 37˚C distilled water for 24 h, then baseline measure-
ments for all analyses were performed. Lastly, TC took place,
which included 6000 cycles in a water bath between 5˚C and
55˚C, with a dwell time of 30 s in each bath. After TC, the
Fig 1 Final design of the samples before 3D printing. Note the
analyses were performed once more. printing parameters (on the right), and the different thicknesses
For baseline and after 6000 TC cycles, the SR of the speci- to achieve the desired final specimens.
mens was assessed using a rugosimeter (SRT1200; PCE Instru-
ments, Meschede, Germany). The cutoff value was set at
0.08 mm (Gauss filter). This procedure was repeated three
times at three different locations – parallel, perpendicular,
and transverse to the finishing and polishing scratch direc-
tions. The average of these readings was used for each sam-
ple. The SR was characterized by Ra (μm), which is an arithme-
tic average of the peaks and valleys of the specimen surface
and is recorded as absolute values within the evaluation which is similar to the ∆E00 formula, but ∆L*, ∆a*, ∆b* values
length. It is generally expressed in units of height. were obtained as following:
For each specimen, the color was determined on white ƒ ∆L* = (∆L*B ∆L*W)
and black backgrounds before and after 6000 cycles of TC. A ƒ ∆a* = (∆a*B - ∆a*W)
commercially available spectrophotometer (Vita EasyShade; ƒ ∆b* = (∆b*B - ∆b*W)
Vita Zahnfabrik, Bad Säckingen, Germany) was used to obtain
the color coordinates, and the color was obtained from the The subscripts B and W correspond to the values obtained on
center of each sample. CS was assessed against the white the black and white background20,21.
background by comparing the color coordinates for baseline The Shapiro-Wilk test (P < 0.05) was used to determine
and after TC, using the following CIEDE2000 color difference normality of data distribution. The two-way analysis of vari-
formula, as previously described20: ance (ANOVA) test was used to determine the difference in
mean distribution of SR and CS values. If this analysis demon-
2 2 2 strated statistical significance (P < 0.05), the Tukey post-hoc
∆E00 =
√ ( K∆L*S ) + ( K∆C*S ) + ( K∆H*S )
L L C C H H
+ RT ( K∆C*S ) ( K∆H*S )
C C H H test was used to identify specific significances between thick- k
nesses and materials (P < 0.05).
A repeated measures ANOVA was used to analyze
The parametric factors KL, KC, and KH are corrections for varia- between-subject effects of the material and thickness, and
tion under experimental conditions and were set to 1.0. the within-subject effect of TC (P < 0.05). Clinical acceptability
Color masking (RTP values) were determined by calculat- and perceptibility thresholds were determined according to
ing the differences between color measurements over the the CIEDE2000, being 2.25 ∆E00 for clinical acceptability and
black and white backgrounds using the RTPCIEDE2000 formula, 1.30 ∆E00 for perceptibility, as previously described22.

International Journal of Computerized Dentistry 2020;23(4):343–350 345

SCIENCE

Table 1 Means and standard deviations (± SE) of the surface 0.6 Baseline
roughness (SR) measurements (μm) of the provisional materials
After TC

Surface roughness [μm]

tested at baseline and after TC as well as the difference between
them for the different thicknesses 0.4

SR means (± SE)
0.2
Materials Baseline After TC Difference

G1: Marche 1.3 mm 0.22 (0.01) 0.31 (0.02) 0.09 (0.02)B 0.0
a Marche Protemp TelioCAD Raydent
G2: Protemp 1.3 mm 0.18 (0.01) 0.23 (0.01) 0.05 (0.02)BC 0.8

Surface Roughness [μm]

G3: TelioCAD 1.3 mm 0.20 (0.02) 0.19 (0.01) -0.01 (0.02)C
0.6
G4: Raydent 1.3 mm 0.26 (0.03) 0.54 (0.03) 0.28 (0.02)A*

G5: Marche 0.6 mm 0.26 (0.02) 0.31 (0.02) 0.05 (0.02)b 0.4

G6: Protemp 0.6 mm 0.20 (0.02) 0.25 (0.02) 0.04 (0.02)b

0.2
G7: TelioCAD 0.6 mm 0.20 (0.02) 0.20 (0.01) 0.00 (0.01)b

G8: Raydent 0.6 mm 0.21 (0.02) 0.60 (0.03) 0.38 (0.03)a 0.0
b Marche Protemp TelioCAD Raydent
Means followed by different superscript letters (uppercase in vertical
Fig 2 The means and standard deviations (± SE) of the surface
refers to different materials in 1.3-mm thickness; lowercase in vertical
refers to different materials in 0.6-mm thickness) differ from each other roughness (SR) measurements [μm] of 1.3-mm –thick provisional
[within the same group of cycling] (P < 0.05). materials tested (a). The means and standard deviations (± SE) of
* Different thicknesses differ within the same material (P < 0.05). the SR measurements (μm) of 0.6-mm–thick provisional materials
tested (b).

Results
Table 1 and Figure 2 summarize the mean (± SE) for SR at
baseline and after TC of the different materials and thickness-
es. Statistically significant differences were found among the
different thicknesses (P < 0.05).
When evaluating 1.3-mm thickness, G4 showed the high-
est SR difference when compared between baseline and after
TC, being statistically significantly different from G1 (P < 0.05),
G2 (P < 0.05), and G3 (P < 0.05). On the other hand, G3 showed
the lowest SR, also statistically different from G1 (P = 0.010)
and G4 (P < 0.05).
When evaluating the 0.6-mm thickness, G8 showed the
highest SR values, being statistically different from G5, G6,
and G7 (P < 0.05). G5, G6, and G7 showed no statistical differ-
ence between them (P > 0.05).
Figure 3 summarizes the mean ΔE (± SE) of the provisional
materials tested, comparing colors at baseline and after TC,
according to the CIEDE2000 values, corresponding to the CS
of the different materials. G4 showed the highest difference
in ∆E00 units for 1.3-mm thickness, being statistically signifi-
cantly different from G1, G2, and G3 (P < 0.05), which were not
different within each other. Also, G4 was the only group
that showed values above the determined clinical accepta-
bility threshold, corresponding to the material with the
lowest CS. The two-way ANOVA between the SR and CS
values demonstrated an interaction between these two
variables (P = 0.032).
On the other hand, for the 0.6-mm thickness, G5, G6, G7,
and G8 were all significantly different between them
(P < 0.05). G8 was the only group that showed values above
the determined clinical acceptability threshold, similar to the
evaluation for the 1.3-mm thickness of this material. G5 and
G6 both showed values above ∆E00 = 1.30. The most color
stable material at 0.6-mm thickness was G7.
Table 2 summarizes the mean (± SE) for RTP of each com-
bination of material and thickness. For the 1.3-mm thickness,
G4 showed the highest RTP difference values (2.66), being
beyond clinical acceptability, and statistically different from
all the other groups for both baseline and after TC (P < 0.05).
G1, G2, and G3 showed values below the determined percep-
tibility value (1.30).
When evaluating the 0.6-mm thickness, G8 showed val-
ues (1.41) above the perceptibility threshold, and G6 showed

346 International Journal of Computerized Dentistry 2020;23(4):343–350

 Atria et al

values above 2.57, which is the clinically acceptable thresh- 8

old. Once again, G8 presented the highest RTP values, which
were statistically different from all the other groups (P < 0.05). a 1.3 mm
6
0.6 mm

∆E00 means
A*
4
Discussion
b
2 c
According to the results of the present study, the null hypoth- B* B* B d
eses were rejected, since the material, its thickness, and its TC 0
affected the SR, CS, and color masking of provisional restor- Marche Protemp TelioCAD Raydent
ations.
Fig 3 ∆E00 measurements and standard deviations (± SE) of
Among all the materials tested, TelioCAD presented the provisional materials tested, comparing colors at baseline and
lowest values for SR after TC and CS, and also the most after TC. Uppercase and lowercase letters indicate how the
acceptable RTP, being within the perceptibility threshold. materials differ from each other (P < 0.05). The asterisk (*)
This means that it was the most stable material out of all indicates how different thicknesses differ within the same
material (P < 0.05).
those analyzed in this study. On the other hand, Raydent C&B,
specifically designed for 3D-printing methods, presented the
highest values of SR, as well as the highest ∆E differences for
both CS and RTP. These results were consistent among both 3D printing has great potential for modern dentistry, and
thicknesses tested. one of the procedures that benefits greatly from this techno-
According to the literature, the color difference at which logy is the fabrication of provisional crowns and bridges, due
50% of participants would remake a restoration due to color to the continual improvements in materials and equipment,
mismatch is 5.5 ∆E12,23. All the materials tested performed which can lead to standardized workflows, diminishing
successfully when considering this parameter, except for the obtention times11. Mechanical characteristics of crown and
3D-printed resin of 0.6-mm thickness, for which a value of bridge 3D-printed resins have been reported, but there is still
5.66 was observed when CS was evaluated. insufficient information in the literature regarding their per-

Table 2 Relative translucency parameter (RTP) according to CIEDE2000, comparing the baseline (without TC) and final (with TC) colors
in white against black background for different materials

RTP means (± SE)

Materials Baseline After TC Difference Baseline vs after TC (P values)

G1: Marche 1.3 mm 9.59 (0.10)C* 9.97 (0.10)D* -0.38 0.986

G2: Protemp 1.3 mm 11.07 (0.12)B* 10.59 (0.05)C* 0.48 0.903

G3: TelioCAD 1.3 mm 11.75 (0.02)B* 12.11 (0.03)B* -0.36 0.992

G4: Raydent 1.3 mm 17.51 (0.10)A* 14.85 (0.21)A* 2.66 0.001

G5: Marche 0.6 mm 17.70 (0.33)c 16.81 (0.15)c 0.88 0.071

G6: Protemp 0.6 mm 17.33 (0.49)c 14.76 (0.22)d 2.57 0.001

G7: TelioCAD 0.6 mm 20.07 (0.10)b 20.59 (0.04)b 0.52 0.834

G8: Raydent 0.6 mm 24.60 (0.07)a 23.19 (0.10)a 1.41 0.001

Means followed by different superscript letters (uppercase in vertical refers to different materials in 1.3-mm thickness; lowercase in vertical refers to
different materials in 0.6-mm thickness) differ from each other within the same group of cycling (P < 0.05).
* Different thicknesses differ within the same material (P < 0.05).

International Journal of Computerized Dentistry 2020;23(4):343–350 347

SCIENCE
formance, and how different 3D-printing technologies and
post-curing processes can affect them11,18.
One of the possible explanations for the results obtained
for the 3D-printed resins could be that a wide variety of fac-
tors can affect the polymerization of resins, such as curing
time, orientation, and post-processing, which can cause
incomplete polymerization, thus affecting the overall proper-
ties of the material11. For example, the higher the degree of
conversion, the higher the elastic modulus, the fewer residual
monomers that can evaporate and thereby affect the results
for the overall properties11. The 3D-printed resin used in this
study was unfilled; therefore, the high roughness values can
be explained by the lack of filler particles, which makes this
material unsuitable for long-term provisional restorations11.
The 3D printer used (Anycubic Photon) works with DLP
technology, which operates on the specific UV wavelength of
405 nm, which is suitable for working with the selected
3D-printed resin.
It is also important to note that the tested resin is ISO cer-
tified (ISO 10993-1), that the manufacturer claims abrasion
resistance, and that the material is therefore suitable for
application in provisional restorations. In the opinion of the
present authors, the manufacturers should directly specify
that, besides its use for post-curing processes, the material is
intended for short-term provisional restorations, and that for
longer periods of time, clinicians should consider other
options available on the market.
PMMA-based materials have been tested successfully for
long-term provisional restorations, achieving a survival rate
of 90.4%, with a complication-free rate of 88.3% for an obser-
vation period of 16 months9. PMMA- based materials for CAD/
CAM application are high-density polymers based on highly
cross-linked PMMA acrylic resin, which avoids the problem of
polymerization shrinkage and residual monomers due to the
manufacturing process of these polymers, as opposed to that
of 3D-printed resins24.
As previously mentioned, SR directly affects the color of
the material18,19 and has a direct impact on plaque adher-
ence, which can result in a deterioration of the esthetic
appearance as well as gingival inflammation, which in turn
will directly affect the future final restorations14. Moreover, SR
facilitates microbial adhesion, which might affect the quanti-
ty and quality of bacterial accumulation and is difficult to
remove from pits and grooves. The organic and inorganic
composition of materials is one of the factors that affect the
roughness property and material wettability13. It has been
reported that fillers and monomers directly influence the
348
adhesion of Streptococcus mutans on the material surface25.
Further research should aim to evaluate the mechanical and
biologic properties according to different post-curing pro-
cessing methods, and ideally develop new materials filled
with particles, which could help improve their overall proper-
ties.
Conclusion
This study evaluated the SR, CS, and color masking as
assessed through the RTP of four different provisional mater-
ials available on the market in two different thicknesses for
use in crown and veneer treatments. The evaluations were
performed before and after water TC. The results showed
that, among all the materials, CAD/CAM PMMA was the most
stable material for all the evaluated parameters for both
thicknesses. On the other hand, autopolymerizing PMMA and
bis-acryl–based resin performed well overall in the evaluation
for SR for both thicknesses, but they performed less well than
CAD/CAM PMMA for CS and color masking, before and after
TC for both thicknesses. Finally, 3D-printed resin showed the
least reliable values overall, for all the evaluated parameters
for both thicknesses. Manufacturers should focus on giving
more information for clinicians in order to improve the use of
their 3D-printed resins intraorally.
Within the limitations of this study, the results showed
that the SR and CS of one commercially available 3D-printed
resin for restorative material obtained by DLP printing
decreases significantly over time. It is important to follow the
manufacturers’ guidelines, when provided. The PMMA CAD/
CAM material performed best overall for all the parameters
analyzed, making it suitable for short- and long-term provi-
sionalization.
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank the Fondo Nacional de Desar-
rollo Científico y Tecnológico (Fondecyt Project 11170920) for
their support.
Disclaimer
The authors state that they have no financial interests in the
companies whose materials were used in this study.
International Journal of Computerized Dentistry 2020;23(4):343–350

References
1. Gürel G, Bichacho N. Permanent diagnostic provisional restorations
for predictable results when redesigning the smile. Pract Proced Aes-
thet Dent 2006;18:281–286.
2. Dawood A, Marti BM, Sauret-Jackson V, Darwood A. 3D printing in
dentistry. Br Dent J 2015;219:521.
3. Hornick J, Roland D. Many 3D printing patents are expiring soon:
Here’s a round up & overview of them. 3D Printing Industry: The
authority on 3D printing [Internet], 2013.
4. Obregon F, Vaquette C, Ivanovski S, Hutmacher D, Bertassoni L.
Three-dimensional bioprinting for regenerative dentistry and crani-
ofacial tissue engineering. J Dent Res 2015;94:143S–52S.
5. Campbell T, Williams C, Ivanova O, Garrett B. Could 3D printing
change the world? Technologies, Potential, and Implications of Addi-
tive Manufacturing, Atlantic Council, Washington, DC, 2011:3.
6. Dizon JRC, Espera Jr AH, Chen Q, Advincula RC. Mechanical charac-
terization of 3D-printed polymers. Addit Manuf 2018;20:44–67.
7. Christensen GJ. The fastest and best provisional restorations. J Am
Dent Assoc 2003;134:637–639.
8. Guler AU, Kurt S, Kulunk T. Effects of various finishing procedures on
the staining of provisional restorative materials. J Prosthet Dent
2005;93:453–458.
9. Huettig F, Prutscher A, Goldammer C, Kreutzer CA, Weber H. First
clinical experiences with CAD/CAM-fabricated PMMA-based fixed
dental prostheses as long-term temporaries. Clin Oral Inv
2016;20:161–168.
10. Stansbury JW, Idacavage MJ. 3D printing with polymers: Challenges
among expanding options and opportunities. Dent Mater
2016;32:54–64.
11. Tahayeri A, Morgan M, Fugolin AP, et al. 3D printed versus conven-
tionally cured provisional crown and bridge dental materials. Dent
Mater 2018;34:192–200.
12. Arif R, Yilmaz B, Johnston WM. In vitro color stainability and relative
translucency of CAD-CAM restorative materials used for laminate
veneers and complete crowns. J Prosthet Dent 2019;122:160–166.
International Journal of Computerized Dentistry 2020;23(4):343–350
Atria et al
13. Ozel GS, Guneser MB, Inan O, Eldeniz AU. Evaluation of C. Albicans
and S. Mutans adherence on different provisional crown materials.
J Adv Prosthodont 2017;9:335–340.
14. Haselton DR, Diaz-Arnold AM, Dawson DV. Effect of storage solution
on surface roughness of provisional crown and fixed partial denture
materials. J Prosthodont 2004;13:227–232.
15. Doray PG, Li D, Powers JM. Color stability of provisional restorative
materials after accelerated aging. J Prosthodont 2001;10:212–6.
16. Ferracane J, Moser J, Greener E. Ultraviolet light-induced yellowing of
dental restorative resins. J Prosthet Dent 1985;54:483–487.
17. Satou N, Khan A, Matsumae I, Satou J, Shintani H. In vitro color
change of composite-based resins. Dent Mater 1989;5:384–387.
18. Belli R, Geinzer E, Muschweck A, Petschelt A, Lohbauer U. Mechanical
fatigue degradation of ceramics versus resin composites for dental
restorations. Dent Mater 2014;30:424–432.
19. Maalhagh-Fard A, Wagner WC, Pink FE, Neme AM. Evaluation of sur-
face finish and polish of eight provisional restorative materials using
acrylic bur and abrasive disk with and without pumice. Oper Dent
2003;28:734–739.
20. CIE technical report (2004): Colorimetry, ed 3. Vienna, Austria. CIE
Central Bureau;15:2004.
21. Kürklü D, Azer SS, Yilmaz B, Johnston WM. Porcelain thickness and
cement shade effects on the colour and translucency of porcelain
veneering materials. J Dent 2013;41:1043–1050.
22. Ghinea R, Pérez MM, Herrera LJ, Rivas MJ, Yebra A, Paravina RD. Color
difference thresholds in dental ceramics. J Dent 2010;38:e57–e64.
23. Douglas RD, Steinhauer TJ, Wee AG. Intraoral determination of the
tolerance of dentists for perceptibility and acceptability of shade
mismatch. J Prosthet Dent 2007;97:200–208.
24. Balkenhol M, Knapp M, Ferger P, Heun U, Wöstmann B. Correlation
between polymerization shrinkage and marginal fit of temporary
crowns. Dent Mater 2008;24:1575–1584.
25. Rosentritt M, Hahnel S, Gröger G, Mühlfriedel B, Bürgers R, Handel G.
Adhesion of Streptococcus mutans to various dental materials in a
laminar flow chamber system. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater
2008;86:36–44.
349
SCIENCE

In-vitro-Untersuchung der Rauheit, der Farbstabilität und des Maskierungsvermögens

provisorischer Veneer- und Kronenmaterialien
Schlüsselwörter: CAD/CAM, Farbmetrik, dentale Materialien, digitale Zahnmedizin

Zusammenfassung
Ziel: Ziel war eine Untersuchung der Rauheit, der Farbstabilität und des als relative Transluzenz gemessenen Maskierungs-
vermögens verschiedener provisorischer Restaurationsmaterialien vor und nach thermozyklischer Alterung im Wasser.
Material und Methoden: Es wurden vier Provisorienmaterialien ausgewählt: Acryl-Kunststoff, Bis-Acryl-Kunststoff, CAD/
CAM-Blöcke aus Polymethylmethacrylat (PMMA) und 3-D-gedruckter Provisorienkunststoff. Hieraus wurden Proben von
0,6 und 1,3 mm Dicke hergestellt und die Rauheit, die Farbstabilität und das Maskierungsvermögen vor und nach Alterung
der Proben in 6.000 Thermozyklen bestimmt. Die Bestimmung der Rauheit erfolgte mit einem Rauheitsmessgerät. Zur
Bewertung des Maskierungsvermögens wurde vor und nach der Alterung die Farbe vor einem weißen und einem schwar-
zen Hintergrund gemessen und hieraus die relative Transluzenz berechnet. Die Farbstabilität wurde mithilfe eines Spektral-
fotometers sowie der CIEDE2000-Formel aus den Werten vor und nach der thermozyklischen Ermüdung berechnet.
Ergebnisse: Die Werte für die Rauheit vor und nach der Alterung lagen für die Probendicke von 1,3 mm im Bereich von
-0,01 bis 0,28 und für die Dicke von 0,6 mm im Bereich von 0,00 bis 0,38. Die Farbstabilität (∆E00 -Werte) reichte für die
1,3-mm-Proben von 0,53 bis 4,38 und für 0,6 mm von 0,70 bis 5,66. Der höchste Wert wurde für 3-D-gedruckten Kunststoff
beobachtet. Die Differenzen der Werte für die relative Transluzenz vor und nach der Alterung bewegten sich für 1,3 mm
im Bereich von -0,036 bis 2,66 und für 0,6 mm zwischen 0,52 und 2,57, wobei die CAD/CAM-Blöcke aus PMMA in beiden
Fällen das Material mit dem geringsten Wert bildeten.
Schlussfolgerung: Die Werte für die Rauheit, Farbstabilität und relative Transluzenz unterschieden sich zwischen den
untersuchten Materialien und Materialstärken. 3-D-gedruckter Kunststoff war den anderen Materialien insgesamt unter-
legen. Die besten Werte bei den untersuchten Parametern erreichte das CAD/CAM-PMMA.

Pablo J. Atria, DDS, MSc Isabel Lagos, DDS

School of Dentistry, Universidad de los Andes, School of Dentistry, Universidad de los Andes,
Santiago, Chile Santiago, Chile

Camila S. Sampaio, DDS, MSc, PhD

School of Dentistry, Universidad de los Andes,
Santiago, Chile

Pablo J. Atria

Address Dr Pablo J. Atria, School of Dentistry, Universidad de los Andes, Monseñor Álvaro de Portillo 12455, Santiago, Chile;
Email: Atria.pablo@gmail.com

350 International Journal of Computerized Dentistry 2020;23(4):343–350