Consultants’ Comments

• “This has been a wonderful compromise for both patient and doctor. The patient gets to keep their tooth and I get to give him an inexpensive crown that will last.”
• “Emergency visit for a broken bridge in the esthetic zone. Nice results considering patient cannot afford other treatment at this time.”
• “Protemp Plus provided excellent marginal adaptation.”
• “Several patients totally forgot they had a temporary.”
• “Just leave the temporary – patient happy.”
• “Protemp Plus was excellent during implant placement and healing period.”
• “I used a flowable composite veneer to enhance anterior esthetics.”
• “Best material that I have seen for long-term temporization with great results.”

Description

Protemp Plus Temporization Material is a two-component composite with a new generation of fillers for fabrication of interim restorations. It is indicated for temporization of single- and multiple-unit crowns, bridges, implants, inlays/onlays, and veneers, including long-term provisional restorations. It is packaged in 50 mL automix cartridges and is available in five fluorescent shades: A1, A2, A3, B3 and Bleach.

Clinical Evaluation Protocol

Eight consultants placed a total of 145 units in 95 patients and recalled them at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 9 months, and one year. Of the 145 units, 108 were single units and 37 multiple units. The multiple units included 10 bridges (three-, four- and eight-unit spans). The single units included crowns, implant crowns and a few inlays and onlays.

Forty-five of the restorations were in the mouth for three months only. The reason some restorations were not in function for a year was often the result of patient request, insurance coverage considerations, or dentist discretion. In a few cases the tooth was scheduled for extraction and the Protemp Plus crown served well during this interim period.

At the one-year recall, 51 restorations out of 145 were still in function. Other patients had dropped out of the evaluation before recall due to reasons not related to the restoration. In fact at the completion of the recall, 19 restorations or about 12% still remain cemented in the mouth because patients requested to keep them for now.

Figure 1

Figure 1 shows the number of restorations and the times these restorations remained in function in the mouth.

At one year, 51 remaining restorations were recalled. Each category was rated on a scale of 1-5: 1=poor, 2=fair, 3=good, 4=very good, 5=excellent.

Clinical Observations

The recall results are summarized on a scale of 1 to 5 as shown in Figure 2.

Gingival Health
In at least two bridge cases, one four-unit and one eight-unit bridge, the tissues were very inflamed with the original PFM bridge. Upon removal of permanent bridge and placement of temporary bridge, the gingival health improved so much that the patient requested to keep their Protemp Plus bridge.

Resistance to Fracture
Fractures that occurred were observed in the first three weeks. After that time, the restorations performed well.

Resistance to Staining
Some staining was observed in smokers and heavy coffee drinkers, but the stains were easily cleaned and polished at recall.

Ease of Repair
Few restorations required repair, but in general repair was easily accomplished with flowable composites when necessary.

Summary

Protemp Plus Temporization Material was evaluated as a long-term temporary material over a period of one year. It received very good to excellent ratings for all categories evaluated. This product received a 96% clinical rating.

Editors’ Note:

An A3.5 shade is now available.