Temporary materials: comparison of in vivo and in vitro performance

ConclusionsComparison of in vivo and in vitro aging led to no significant differences in fracture force and wear but differences in roughness, DSC, and TGA. SEM evaluation confirmed comparability. Comparison of CAD/CAM and cartridge temporary materials partially showed significant differences.Clinical relevanceIn vitro aging methods might be helpful to estimate materials ’ properties before principal clinical application. CAD/CAM and cartridge temporary materials provided comparable good clinical performance.

Source: Clinical Oral Investigations - October 8, 2020 Category: Dentistry Source Type: research