Bastawi, Aly Eloui A., 1928-2014-04-242014-04-241963https://hdl.handle.net/1805/4348http://dx.doi.org/10.7912/C2/1514Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI)The purpose of this study was to evaluate clinically, the general disintegration, gross fracture, marginal breakdown, and surface texture in Class I and Class II restorations of four temporary filling materials having widely varying physical properties. They were zinc oxide-eugenol (Temrex), zinc oxide-rosin eugenol (Caulk’s), zinc phosphate cement (Tenacin), and silico-phosphate cement (Kryptex). Powder-liquid ratios and all manipulative procedures for each of the four materials were standardized. Compressive strength, solubility and abrasion resistance tests were carried out in the laboratory on the same standardized mixes used in the clinical part. A total of 137 standardized cavities were prepared in deciduous and permanent teeth of 37 children and restored with the four materials in an effort to equalize the distribution between the four quadrants. Rubber base impressions were taken as permanent records for evaluation at the one week, one month and three months observation visits. Zinc oxide-rosin eugenol (Caulk) exhibited the least resistance to disintegration and the roughest surface while the zinc oxide eugenol (Temrex) exhibited considerably more resistance and the smoothest surface. Zinc phosphate showed the greatest resistance to disintegration. Silico-phosphate cement exhibited the same behavior in Class I restorations but showed higher failure in Class II restorations due to fractures. Zinc phosphate exhibited smoother surface than the silico-phosphate cement. There was no correlation between in vitro solubility and clinical disintegration. Compressive strength seemed to be related to the general durability of the materials.en-USDental Restoration, PermanentDental MaterialsThesis