Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 25, 2026
Quasistatic Mechanical Testing for Computer-Aided Design and Manufacturing Occlusal Veneers Cemented to Milled Dentin Analog Material
Published on: December 20, 2024
[Comparative analysis of microhardness of polymeric materials for temporary restorations manufactured using different
F F Losev1,2, T V Brailovskaya1,2, M P Grigoriev1
1Central Research Institute of Dentistry and Maxillofacial Surgery, Moscow, Russia.
Objective:
Comparative study of the surface hardness of polymer materials for temporary crowns, differing in composition and manufacturing technology, in a dry state and after exposure to an aqueous medium.
Material And Methods:
4 materials were studied: Huge PMMA (CAD/CAM), Dental Sand Pro (3D printing), Sinma-M (hot curing), Tempocor (cold curing). The disc-shaped samples were polished and kept in dry conditions or distilled water (37 °C, 7 days). The Vickers hardness was measured on a Duramin-20 microhardness tester (load 25 g, exposure 15 s). Statistical processing is the Student's t-test.
Results:
In the dry state, all materials showed similar hardness (19-22 HV). The smallest decrease in hardness after water was observed in Huge PMMA (<7%) and Sinma-M (~3%). Dental Sand Pro showed a decrease of 12.4%. The maximum drop was in Tempocor (by 17%: from 19.72 to 16.37 HV). Microstructurally, Dental Sand Pro and Tempocor have pores and inhomogeneities.
Conclusion:
It is most stable in the aquatic environment of Huge PMMA (CAD/CAM). Sinma-M (hot polymerization) also demonstrates high stability. Dental Sand Pro 3D printing material requires optimization of post-polymerization modes. Tempocor (cold curing) is the least water-resistant, and its use for long-term temporary restoration is limited. Surface hardness is an informative criterion for preclinical assessment of the reliability of temporary restorations.
