IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0193162.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mechanical properties of provisional dental materials: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Daniela Astudillo-Rubio
  • Andrés Delgado-Gaete
  • Carlos Bellot-Arcís
  • José María Montiel-Company
  • Agustín Pascual-Moscardó
  • José Manuel Almerich-Silla

Abstract

Provisional restorations represent an important phase during the rehabilitation process, knowledge of the mechanical properties of the available materials allows us to predict their clinical performance. At present, there is no systematic review, which supports the clinicians’ criteria, in the selection of a specific material over another for a particular clinical situation. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess and compare the mechanical properties of dimethacrylates and monomethacrylates used in fabricating direct provisional restorations, in terms of flexural strength, fracture toughness and hardness. This review followed the PRISMA guidelines. The searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, the New York Academy of Medicine Grey Literature Report and were complemented by hand-searching, with no limitation of time or language up to January 10, 2017. Studies that assess and compare the mechanical properties of dimethacrylate- and monomethacrylate-based provisional restoration materials were selected. A quality assessment of full-text articles were performed according to modified ARRIVE and CONSORT criteria and modified Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for in vitro studies. Initially, 256 articles were identified. After removing the duplicates and applying the selection criteria, 24 articles were included in the qualitative synthesis and 7 were included in the quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis). It may be concluded that dimethacrylate-based provisional restorations presented better mechanical behavior than monomethacrylate-based ones in terms of flexural strength and hardness. Fracture toughness showed no significant differences. Within the monomethacrylate group, polymethylmethacrylate showed greater flexural strength than polyethylmethacrylate.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniela Astudillo-Rubio & Andrés Delgado-Gaete & Carlos Bellot-Arcís & José María Montiel-Company & Agustín Pascual-Moscardó & José Manuel Almerich-Silla, 2018. "Mechanical properties of provisional dental materials: A systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-19, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0193162
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0193162
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0193162
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0193162&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0193162?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0193162. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.