International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 13 , ISSUE 1 ( January-February, 2020 ) > List of Articles

Original Article

A Comparative Evaluation of Fracture Toughness of Composite Resin vs Protemp 4 for Use in Strip Crowns: An In Vitro Study

KC Vignesh, Eswar Kandaswamy

Keywords : Composite resin, Fracture toughness, Primary incisors, Protemp 4, Strip crowns

Citation Information : Vignesh K, Kandaswamy E. A Comparative Evaluation of Fracture Toughness of Composite Resin vs Protemp 4 for Use in Strip Crowns: An In Vitro Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2020; 13 (1):57-60.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1711

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 00-02-2020

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2020; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Aim: The aim of this study was to compare the fracture toughness of pedo shade packable composite resin (Z100, 3M ESPE, St. Paul, USA) vs Protemp 4 (3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany) when used inside a strip crown to restore primary incisors. Materials and methods: Thirty-six exfoliated noncarious human primary central and lateral incisors were randomly divided into two equal groups. The teeth were prepared to standardized dimensions to receive a strip crown. All the teeth were etched, rinsed, and dried following which bonding agent was applied and light cured. In group I, pedo shade packable composite resin (Z100, 3M ESPE, St. Paul, USA) was packed into strip crowns, placed on the prepared tooth, and light cured. In group II, the strip crowns were filled with Protemp 4 (3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany), placed on the prepared tooth, and left to autopolymerize for 10 minutes. The strip crowns were removed, and the teeth were tested using the universal testing machine until fracture. Fracture toughness of the two groups was recorded and analyzed statistically using Student\'s “t” test. Results: The mean force required to fracture strip crowns restored with Protemp 4 (416.89 ± 124.58 N) was higher when compared with pedo shade packable composite resin (338.27 ± 130.99 N). However, statistical analysis did not show a significant difference in the fracture toughness between the two groups (p = 0.074), based on Student\'s “t” test results. Conclusion: The fracture toughness of teeth restored with Protemp 4 was comparable with pedo shade packable composite resin when used inside a strip crown. Clinical significance: The use of Protemp 4 is a possible alternative to pedo shade packable composite resin in restoring the primary anterior teeth, when used inside the strip crowns. The data also showed that the fracture toughness of Protemp 4 was comparable with pedo shade packable composite resin.

PDF Share
  1. Gupta M, Chen J, Ontiveros JC. Veneer retention of preveneered primary stainless steel crowns after crimping. J Dent Child 2008;75(1):44–47.
  2. Waggoner WF, Cohen H. Failure strength of four veneered primary stainless steel crowns. Pediatr Dent 1995;17(1):36–40.
  3. Marquezin MCS, Zancopé BR, Pacheco LF, et al. Aesthetic and functional rehabilitation of the primary dentition affected by amelogenesis imperfecta. Case Rep Dent 2015;2015:1–6. DOI: 10.1155/2015/790890.
  4. Carranza F, García-Godoy F. Esthetic restoration of primary incisors. Am J Dent 1999;12(2):55–58.
  5. Hartmann CR. The open-face stainless steel crown: an esthetic technique. ASDC J Dent Child 1983;50(1):31–33.
  6. ElBadrawy HE, Diab M. Treatment of cariously involved fused maxillary primary lateral and central incisors. Pediatr Dent 2011;23(4):363–364.
  7. Croll TP, Helpin ML. Preformed resin-veneered stainless steel crowns for restoration of primary incisors. Quintessence Int 1996;27(5):309–313.
  8. MacLean JK, Champagne CE, Waggoner WF, et al. Clinical outcomes for primary anterior teeth treated with preveneered stainless steel crowns. Pediatr Dent 2007;29(5):377–381.
  9. Shah PV, Lee JY, Wright JT. Clinical success and parental satisfaction with anterior preveneered primary stainless steel crowns. Pediatr Dent 2004;26(5):391–395.
  10. Lee JK. Restoration of primary anterior teeth: review of the literature. Pediatr Dent 2002;24(5):506–510.
  11. Kupietzky A. Bonded resin composite strip crowns for primary incisors: clinical tips for a successful outcome. Pediatr Dent 2002;24(2):145–148.
  12. Kupietzky A, Waggoner WF, Galea J. The clinical and radiographic success of bonded resin composite strip crowns for primary incisors. Pediatr Dent 2003;25(6):577–581.
  13. Kupietzky A, Waggoner WF, Galea J. Long-term photographic and radiographic assessment of bonded resin composite strip crowns for primary incisors: results after 3 years. Pediatr Dent 2005;27(3):221–225.
  14. Mortada A, King NM. A simplified technique for the restoration of severely mutilated primary anterior teeth. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2004;28(3):187–192. DOI: 10.17796/jcpd.28.3.2554xv412644ru13.
  15. Ram D, Fuks AB. Clinical performance of resin-bonded composite strip crowns in primary incisors: a retrospective study. Int J Ped Dent 2006;16:49–54. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-263X.2006.00680.x.
  16. Su HL, Chen PS. A clinical evaluation of comprehensive dental treatment for children under general anesthesia. Changgeng Yi Xue Za Zhi 1992;15(4):188–192.
  17. Eidelman E, Faibis S, Peretz B. A comparison of restorations for children with early childhood caries treated under general anesthesia or conscious sedation. Pediatr Dent 2000;22(1):33–37.
  18. O’Sullivan EA, Curzon ME. The efficacy of comprehensive dental care for children under the general anesthesia. Br Dent J 1991;171(2):56–58. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4807603.
  19. Salami A, Walia T, Bashiri R. Comparison of parental satisfaction with three tooth-Colored full-coronal restorations in primary maxillary incisors. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2015;39(5):423–428. DOI: 10.17796/1053-4628-39.5.423.
  20. Tate AR, Ng MW, Needleman HL, et al. Failure rates of restorative procedures following dental rehabilitation under general anesthesia. Pediatr Dent 2002;24(1):69–71.
  21. Roberts C, Lee JY, Wright JT. Clinical evaluation of and parental satisfaction with resin-faced stainless steel crowns. Pediatr Dent 2001;23(1):28–31.
  22. Judd PL, Kenny DJ, Johnston DH, et al. Composite resin short-post technique for primary anterior teeth. J Am Dent Assoc 1990;120(5):553–555. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.1990.0071.
  23. Nelson T. An improved interim therapeutic restoration technique for management of anterior early childhood caries: report of two cases. Pediatr Dent 2013;35(4):124–128.
  24. Duhan H, Pandit IK, Srivastava N, et al. Clinical comparison of various esthetic restorative options for coronal build-up of primary anterior teeth. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 2015;12(6):574–580. DOI: 10.4103/1735-3327.170578.
  25. Wassell RW, St George G, Ingledew RP, et al. Crowns and other extra-coronal restorations: provisional restorations. Br Dent J 2002;15:619–630. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4801443.
  26. Tjan AH, Castelnuovo J, Shiotsu G. Marginal fidelity of crowns fabricated from six proprietary provisional materials. J Prosthet Dent 1997;77(5):482–485. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(97)70140-9.
  27. Lang R, Rosentritt M, Leibrock A, et al. Colour stability of provisional crown and bridge restoration materials. Br Dent J 1998;185(9):468–471. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4809839.
  28. Mehrpour H, Farjood E, Giti R, et al. Evaluation of the flexural strength of interim restorative materials in fixed prosthodontics. J Dent (Shiraz) 2016;17(3):201–206.
  29. Amin BM, Aras MA, Chitre V. A comparative evaluation of the marginal accuracy of crowns fabricated from four commercially available provisional materials: an in vitro study. Contemp Clin Dent 2015;6(2):161–165. DOI: 10.4103/0976-237X.156035.
  30. Champagne C, Waggoner W, Ditmyer M, et al. Parental satisfaction with preveneered stainless steel crowns for primary anterior teeth. Pediatr Dent 2007;29(6):465–469.
  31. Mittal NP. Restoring the smile: inexpensive biologic restorations. Dent Res J 2014;11(3):415–421.
  32. Jeong M-A, Kim A-H, Shim Y-S, et al. Restoration of strip crown with a resin-bonded composite cement in early childhood caries. Case Rep Dent 2013;2013:581934. DOI: 10.1155/2013/581934.
  33. Jain M, Singla S, Bhushan B, et al. Esthetic rehabilitation of anterior primary teeth using polyethylene fiber with two different approaches. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2011;29(4):327–332. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.86381.
  34. Navit S, Katiyar A, Samadi F, et al. Rehabilitation of severely mutilated teeth under general anesthesia in an emotionally immature child. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2010;28(1):42–44. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.60476.
  35. Bayrak S, Tunc ES, Tuloglu N. Polyethylene fiber-reinforced composite resin used as a short post in severely decayed primary anterior teeth: a case report. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2009;107(5):e60–e64. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2008.12.051.
  36. Usha M, Deepak V, Venkat S, et al. Treatment of severely mutilated incisors: a challenge to the pedodontist. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2007;25(Suppl):S34–S36.
  37. Mendes FM, De Benedetto MS, Del Conte Zardetto CG, et al. Correa MSNP. resin composite restoration in primary anterior teeth using short post technique and strip crowns: a case report. Quintessence Int 2004;35(9):689–692.
  38. Margolis FS. The sandwich technique and strip crowns: an esthetic restoration for primary incisors. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2002;23(12):1165–1169. quiz1170.
  39. Kupietzky API, Waggoner WF. Parental satisfaction with bonded resin composite strip crowns for primary incisors. Pediatr Dent 2004;26(4):337–340.
  40. Ashima G, Sarabjot KB, Gauba K, et al. Zirconia crowns for rehabilitation of decayed primary incisors: an esthetic alternative. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2014;39(1):18–22. DOI: 10.17796/jcpd.39.1.t6725r5566u4330g.
  41. Planells del Pozo P, Fuks AB. Zirconia crowns—an esthetic and resistant restorative alternative for ECC affected primary teeth. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2014;38(3):193–195. DOI: 10.17796/jcpd.38.3.0255q84jt2851311.
  42. Bayne SC. Correlation of clinical performance with “in vitro test” of restorative dental materials that use polymer—based matrices. Dent Mater 2012;28(1):52–71. DOI: 10.1016/
  43. McLaren EA. Bonded functional esthetic prototype: an alternative pre-treatment mock-up technique and cost-effective medium-term esthetic solution. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2013;34(8):596–607.
  44. Khajuria RR, Madan R, Agarwal S, et al. Comparison of temperature rise in pulp chamber during polymerization of materials used for direct fabrication of provisional restorations: an in vitro study. Eur J Dent 2015;9(2):194–200. DOI: 10.4103/1305-7456.156807.
  45. Rosen M, Klompas J, Becker PJ. Bond strength values: should they be considered in material selection? J Dent Assoc S Afr 1995;50(5):197–202.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.