CODS - Journal of Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 8 , ISSUE 1 ( January-June, 2016 ) > List of Articles


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

G Vinaya Kumar, Renuka Devi, Nimmy Anto

Keywords : Dental products of india,Porosity,Protemp,Surface roughness,Tempofit

Citation Information : 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.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10063-0010

License: CC BY-NC-ND 3.0

Published Online: 01-09-2007

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2016; The Author(s).



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.


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.


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.

  1. A review of selected dental literature on contemporary provisional fixed prosthodontic treatment: report of the Committee on Research in Fixed Prosthodontics of the Academy of Fixed Prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent 2003 Nov;90(5):474-497.
  2. The provisional restoration. Dent Clin North Am 1987 Jul;31(3):363-381.
  3. In vitro comparative evaluation of the effect of two different fiber reinforcements on the fracture toughness of provisional restorative resins. Indian J Dent Res 2012 Mar-Apr;23(2):140-144.
  4. Effects of current provisional restoration materials on the viability of fibroblasts. Eur J Dent 2009 Apr;3(2):114-119.
  5. Polishing provisionals: better, faster and easier. JCDA 2006 Nov;72(9):809-812.
  6. Evaluation of surface physical properties of acrylic resins for provisional prosthesis. Mater Res 2008 Jul;11(3):257-260.
  7. Roughness and porosity of provisional crowns. RPG Rev Pós Grad 2011 Feb;18(1):108-112.
  8. Comparative evaluation of surface porosities in conventional heat polymerized acrylic resin cured by water bath and microwave energy with microwavable acrylic resin cured by microwave energy. Contemp Clin Dent 2013 Apr-Jun;4(2):147-151.
  9. Porosity in boilable acrylic resin. J Prosthet Dent 1983 Jan;49(1):133-135.
  10. Physical properties of acrylic resin polymerized by four different techniques. J Prosthet Dent 1985 Oct;54(4):522-524.
  11. Porosity reduction and its associated effects on the diametral tensile strength of activated acrylic resins. J Prosthet Dent 1985 Mar;53(3):374-379.
  12. The influence of surface roughness and surface-free energy on supra and subgingival plaque formation in man. J Clin Periodontal 1995 Jan;22(1):1-14.
  13. Effect of heat treatment on the physical properties of provisional crowns during polymerization: an in vitro study. Materials 2015 Apr;8:1776-1777.
  14. Effects of polishing techniques on the surface roughness of acrylic denture base resins. J Prosthet Dent 2005 Jan;93(1):76-85.
  15. L., and Phillips, R. W.: Comparison of bacterial accumulations on rough and smooth enamel surfaces. J Periodontol 28: 304, 1957
  16. Effect of water temperature on the fit of provisional crown margins during polymerization. J Prosthet Dent 1999 Dec;82(6):658-661.
  17. Comparative in vitro evaluation of two provisional restorative materials. J Prosthet Dent 2001 Feb;85(2):129-132.
  18. Evaluation of porosity in microwave-processed acrylic resin using a photographic method. J Prosthet Dent 2002 Jun;87(6):613-619.
  19. Influence of polymerization conditions on monomer elution and micro hardness of autopolymerized polymethyl methacrylate resin. Eur J Oral Sci 2002 Apr;110(2):179-183.
  20. The effect of two polishing pastes on the surface roughness of bis-acryl composites and methacrylate-based resins. J Prosthet Dent 2002 Nov;88(5):527-532.
  21. Plaque accumulation on composite surfaces after various finishing procedures. J Am Dent Assoc 1975;91:101-106.
  22. The effect of two polishing pastes on the surface roughness of bis-acryl composites and methacrylate based resins. J Prosthet Dent 2002; 88(5):527-32.
  23. Provisional restorations in prosthodontic rehabilitations –concepts, materials and techniques. NUJHS, 2012;2(2);72-77.
  24. R G Jagger, P J Milward Effect of the Curing Cycle on Acrylic Denture Base Glass Transition Temperatures J Dent 1991 Aug;19(4):245-248.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.