Evaluation and Comparison of the Surface Roughness and Porosity of Different Provisional Restorative Materials: An in vitro Study

Abstract

ABSTRACT Aim The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the surface roughness and porosity of different provisional restorative materials. Materials and methods Provisional restorative materials were divided into following three groups: Dental products of india (DPI), Protemp, Tempofit. For each group, wax block with 20 × 10 × 3 mm was made for making vinyl polysiloxane impression material to give 12 samples in each group of three different provisional restorative materials. The acrylic resin was inserted into the silicon impression mold. A total of 12 specimens of one material were obtained. The specimens were finished with the help of lathe using a sequence of grit sand paper. The surface roughness was verified with the help of a micron dial indicator. To facilitate the porosity readings, the specimens were immersed in dye for 2 hours. The number of pores in each area was determined with a stereomicroscope with magnification 1× 50× to check the porosity of three different provisional restorative materials. Values were subjected to statistical analysis. Results Analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was used to compare between Tempofit, Protemp, and DPI. The results obtained indicated that surface roughness of Protemp was least compared with Tempofit and DPI. The ANOVA test was used to check surface area of porosities in each provisional material, followed by Kruskal–Wallis test and Mann–Whitney test (highly significant) (p < 0.001). The results obtained indicate that Protemp material showed the least number of porosities and minimal surface roughness followed by Tempofit and DPI. Henceforth, it can be concluded that among the three tested materials, Protemp was the best material which can be used for provisional restorations. Conclusion Surface roughness and porosity were compared among Protemp, Tempofit, and DPI material; the best results were obtained with the use of Protemp material which had shown the least number of porosities and minimal surface roughness. How to cite this article Kumar GV, Devi R, Anto N. Evaluation and Comparison of the Surface Roughness and Porosity of Different Provisional Restorative Materials: An in vitro Study. CODS J Dent 2016;8(1):39-45.