












































Page mackup January-15.qxd


Bangladesh Journal of Medical Science Vol. 14 No. 01 January’15

59

Original article

Fabrication of provisional restoration on freshly prepared tooth: indirect and direct technique 

Choudhury M
1
,  Nahar N

2
, Yazdi S

3
, Choudhury F

4
, Sultana A

5

Introduction:
In fixed partial denture, provisional restorations are
inserted on freshly prepared teeth, for the time being,
until a final prostheses is inserted.  Provisional
restorations have evolved through significant
changes during the past several decades.  Probably
the most stimulators of change is provisional restora-
tion have been major amount of fixed prosthodontics
therapy1.  Provisional restorations are fabricated to
protect the prepared tooth structure during the period

between the preparation and the final restoration2.
After tooth preparation, a temporary protective or
functional restoration is fabricated over the prepared
tooth to be used until the fabrication of the final pros-
theses. Temporary restorations are usually fabricated
and provided on the same day of tooth preparation3.
Provisional restorations can also be used for extend-
ed treatment intervals by providing long term tooth
protection and stabilization during adjunctive peri-

Corresponds to: Dr. Nurunnahar, Asstt. Professor & Head, Dept. of Conservative Dentistry, 
Bangladesh Medical College, Dhaka.

Abstract:
Background: Provisional restorations are fabricated to protect the prepared tooth structure 
during period between the preparation and the final restoration, and the techniques applied are 
direct, indirect and indirect direct. Various materials are used to fabricate provisional 
restoration, such as, preformed crown, acrylic, metal shell, composite, etc. Objectives: The 
study was designed to evaluate the advantages of fabrication of provisional restorations by 
indirect technique over direct technique. Methods: This prospective comparative study carried 
out in the Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib 
Medical University, Dhaka, from January 2006 to December 2007, included 20 patients each 
for insertion of provisional restorations fabricated by indirect (group A) and direct (group B) 
technique. Outcome was evaluated on the basis of marginal adaptation, biocompatibility and 
aesthetic status. Results: On day 7 of provisional restoration, grade I marginal adaptation 
were observed in 75% and 40% of group A and group B patients, respectively, and on day 15 
were 75% and 20%, respectively. Grade I biocompatibility on day 7 of group A patients were 
100% and group B 30%, and on day 15 was 95% and 35%, respectively. Grade I aesthetic 
status on day 7 were in 100% of both group A and group B patients, and on day 15 was 95% 
and 85%, respectively. None of the patients was in grade III, either in marginal adaptation, 
biocompatibility or aesthetic status. Conclusion: Indirect provisional restoration is better and 
safer in relation to marginal adaptation, biocompatibility and aesthetic status.
Key words: fabrication; provisional restoration

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3329/bjms.v14i1.21560 
Bangladesh Journal of Medical Science Vol. 14 No. 01 January'15. Page: 59-64

1. Dr. Marium Choudhury, Asstt. Professor & Head, Dept. of Oral Pathology & Periodontology,
Bangladesh Medical College, Dhaka

2. Dr. Nurun Nahar, Asstt. Professor & Head, Dept. of Conservative Dentistry, Bangladesh
Medical College, Dhaka

3. Dr. Shegufa Yazdi, Asstt. Professor & Head, Dept. of Paediatric Dentistry, Bangladesh Medical
College, Dhaka

4. Dr. Farhana Choudhury,  Associate Professor & Head, Dept. of Conservative Dentistry, Bangladesh
Medical College, Dhaka

5. Prof. Alia Sultana, Ex-Chairman, Dept. of Prothodontics, BSMMU, Dhaka



odontal and endodontic treatment procedures4-5.
Mechanically the provisional restorations, during
function, must resist functional loads that occur dur-
ing chewing as well as resist removal forces without
fracturing6.
There are several methods, such as, direct, indirect
and indirect direct technique to fabricate provisional
restorations. Various materials are used to fabricate
provisional restoration, such as, preformed crown,
acrylic, metal shell, composite, etc.  In the direct
technique, the prostheses are fabricated in the
patient's mouth by inserting an impression which is
previously taken before tooth preparation and loaded
with acrylic resin material.  In the indirect technique,
it is fabricated outside the patient's mouth, on a mode
which is prepared from an impression taken before
tooth preparation.  In practice, direct technique is
commonly used; but it has some disadvantages, like
it caused more polymerization shrinkage of the pros-
theses that results in poor marginal adaptation,
adverse reaction to oral tissue because of its residual
monomer, proper curing of the material is not possi-
ble in presence of oral fluid, and also exothermic heat
produced during polymerization causes discomfort to
the patient.  On the other hand, as in the indirect tech-
nique, the prostheses is prepared outside the mouth in
the laboratory, therefore, it is free from these disad-
vantages, though it takes more time and extra cost.
Many dentists will not go for indirect provisional
restoration because of high laboratory cost.
However, indirect provisional restorations have cer-
tain advantages:  (a) stronger and durable material
like acrylic resin can be used; (b) any aesthetic or
occlusal change can be made on an articulator, (c)
there is also no contact of free monomer with the pre-
pared tooth or gingival than cause tissue damage, and
(d) it avoids subjecting a prepared tooth to the heat
created from the polymerizing resin.
Provisional restorations fabricated by direct tech-
nique are though cheaper and easier to fabricate but
have certain disadvantages, like it shows poor mar-
ginal adaptation because of polymerization shrink-
age, its residual monomer causes tissue inflammation
and exothermic heat of polymerization causes pulpal
damage and patient discomfort.
In our study, we tried to find out the outcome of both
indirect and direct technique of fabrication of provi-
sional restorations on freshly prepared tooth in our
hospital.
Materials and Methods:
This prospective comparative study was carried out
in the Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of

Dentistry, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical
University, from January 2006 to December 2007.
Forty patients who fulfilled inclusion criteria were
divided into two groups:  Group A (n=20) for inser-
tion of provisional restorations fabricated by indirect
technique, and Group B (n=20) for insertion of pro-
visional restorations fabricated by direct technique.
Inclusion criteria were (a) one or more missing
tooth/teeth for restoration by fixed partial denture, (b)
endodontically treated teeth for restoration with fixed
prostheses, (c) fractured drown, and (d) healthy peri-
odontal tissue.  Exclusion criteria were (a) periodon-
tally compromised patients, (b) parafunctional habit,
like bruxism, (c) vertical fracture, and (d) develop-
mentally defective teeth.
Provisional restoration by indirect technique
Before tooth preparation, an impression is made with
silicone rubber  and allowed to set (external 
surface form [ESF]). After tooth preparation by
maintaining standard technique, another impression
is made and a cast poured (tissue surface form
[TSF]).  Separating medium is applied uniformly
with a camel hairbrush, over the tissue surface form
and allowed to dry.  When the cast is thoroughly dry,
the finished line of the preparation is marked with a
sharp and soft lead pencil to serve later as a guide for
trimming.  Autopolymerizing resin (opaque variety)
is mixed.  The mixing is then poured into the tissue
surface form (mould should not be overfilled and the
resin should reach the level of the gingiva). The TSF
is sealed into the external surface form, and lightly
held together by rubber bands. The assembly is then
placed in warm water. After five minutes it is
removed and the external surface form is separated
from the cured resin restoration, which usually
remains in contact with the tissue surface form.
Resin flush is eliminated with an acrylic trimming
bur and a fine grit garnet paper disk. Care is taken for
any resin blebs or remnants of stone on the internal
surface of the restoration. Finishing touch is given
with carborundum bar and polishing is done with wet
pumice powder. The final restoration is cemented
with zinc oxide eugenol cement on the prepared tooth
surface.
Provisional restoration by direct technique
First, an impression is made with silicone rubber and
sectional impression tray, and then tooth preparation
is carried out by maintaining standard technique.
After tooth preparation and bleeding control, the pre-
pared tooth and the surrounding tissue is coated with
petroleum jelly.  The autopolymerizing resin is mixed
and loaded into the impression taken earlier.  The

Fabrication of provisional restoration on tooth

60



resin is allowed start polymerization, When the rub-
bery stage of polymerization (about 2 min in the
mouth), it is removed from the mouth and excess
material is removed with a scissors and again insert-
ed into the same place.  During this procedure, suffi-
cient aircooling is provided with a air syringe over
the area.  After the polymerization is complete, the
tray along the restoration is removed from the mouth
and the restoration is departed from the impression
and soaked in warm water for 3 5 min.  Margins are
marked with a pencil.  Voids in the restoration is
checked and corrected by additional material.  Excess
material is trimmed up to the finish line.  The restora-
tion is completed by carborundum bur and polished
with polishing material (stone bur, sandpaper No. 0,
pumice powder).  The final restoration is cemented
with zinc oxide eugenol cement on the prepared tooth
surface.
Evaluation: The prepared provisional restoration
was evaluated in patient's mouth for marginal adapta-
tion of the prostheses to the prepared tooth, biocom-
patibility of the restoration and aesthetic status on
day 7 and day 157-8.  Any defect was corrected by
adding resin. 
Marginal adaptation: The index was based on the
adaptation of the restoration to the margin of the pre-
pared tooth.  Grade I:  No visible evidence of crevice
along the margin into which explorer will penetrated.
Grade II:  Visible evidence of slight marginal discrep-
ancy with no evidence of decay; repair can be made
or is unnecessary.  Grade III:  Discoloration on the
margin between the restoration and the tooth surface.
Biocompatibility: The index was based on the crite-
ria of gingival redness and bleeding on probing.
Grade I:  No bleeding on probing and no plaque accu-
mulation.  Grade II:  Mild to moderate bleeding.
Grade III:  Severe bleeding.
Aesthetic status: The index was based on colour,
surface, morphology of tooth.  Grade I:  Exactly sim-
ilar to adjacent/contralateral natural teeth.  Grade II:
Slight mismatched to adjacent/contralateral natural
teeth.  Grade III:  Not similar to adjacent/contralater-
al teeth.
Data analysis: Collected data were compiled and
analyzed using computerbased software (SPSS, ver-
sion 13).
Results:
Table 1 shows marginal adaptation of provisional
restoration of grade I and grade II (none in grade III)
of group A and group B patients on day 7 and day 15.
On day 7, marginal adaptation of grade I was seen in
15 (75%) and 8 (40%) patients, and marginal adapta-

tion of grade II was seen in 5 (25%) and 12 (60%)
patients of group A and group B, respectively.
Statistically, no significant variation was observed.
On day 15, marginal adaptation of grade I was seen
in 15 (75%) and 4 (20%) patients, and marginal adap-
tation of grade II was seen in 5 (25%) and 16 (80%)
patients of group A and B, respectively.  Variation
was significant (P<0.01).
Marginal adaptation of grade I and grade II of group
A patients on day 7 was 15 (75%) and 5 (25%), and
on day 15 was 15 (75%) and 5 (25%), respectively.
No significant variation was observed.  Marginal
adaptation of grade I and grade II of group B patients
on 7 was 8 (40%) and 12 (60%), and on day 15 was
4 (20%) and 16 (80%), respectively.  The variation
was not statistically significant.
Table 2 shows biocompatibility of provisional
restoration of grade I and grade II (none in grade III)
of group A and group B patients on day 7 and day 15.
On day 7, biocompatibility of grade I was seen in 20
(100%) and 6 (30%) patients, and  biocompatibility
of grade II was seen in 0 (0%) and 14 (70%) patients
of group A and group B, respectively.  Statistically,

Choudhury M,  Nahar N, Yazdi S, Choudhury  F,  Sultana A

61

Group/ Grade I Grade II P value
Follow up No. (%) No. (%)

Marginal adaptation

Day 7 0.054ns
Group A 15 (75.0) 5 (25.0)
Group B 8 (40.0) 12 (60.0)

Day 15 0.001**
Group A 15 (75.0) 5 (25.0)
Group B 4 (20.0) 16 (80.0)

Group A 1.000ns
Day 7 15 (75.0) 5 (25.0)
Day 15 15 (75.0) 5 (25.0)

Group B 0.301ns
Day 7 8 (40.0) 12 (60.0)
Day 15 4 (20.0) 16 (80.0)

Group A : Indirect technique (n=20)
Group B : Direct technique (n=20)

Fisher's exact test, ns = Not significant
** = Significant at P<0.01

Table 1:  Marginal adaptation of provisional
restoration



the distribution was highly significant (P<0.001).  On
day 15, biocompatibility of grade I was seen in 19
(95%) and 7 (35%) patients, and biocompatibility of
grade II was seen in 1 (5%) and 13 (65%) patients of
group A and B, respectively.  Variation was highly
significant (P<0.001).
Biocompatibility of grade I and grade II of group A
patients on day 7 was 20 (100%) and 0 (0%), and on
day 15 was 19 (95%) and 1 (5%), respectively.  No
significant variation was observed.  Biocompatibility
of grade I and grade II of group B patients on 7 was
6 (30%) and 14 (70%), and on day 15 was 7 (35%)
and 13 (65%), respectively.  The variation was statis-
tically not significant.
Table 3 shows aesthetic status of provisional restora-
tion of grade I and grade II (none in grade III) of
group A and group B patients on day 7 and day 15.
On day 7, marginal adaptation of grade I was seen in
all 20 (100%) patients of both group A and group B.
On day 15, aesthetic status of grade I was seen in 19
(95%) and 17 (85%) patients, and aesthetic status of
grade II was seen in 1 (5%) and 3 (15%) patients of
group A and B, respectively.  Statistically, no signifi-

cant variation was observed.
Aesthetic status of grade I and grade II of group A
patients on day 7 was 20 (100%) and 0 (0%), and on
day 15 was 19 (95%) and 1 (5%), respectively.  No
significant variation was observed.  Aesthetic status
of grade I and grade II of group B patients on 7 was
20 (100%) and 0 (0%), and on day 15 was 17 (85%)
and 3 (15%), respectively.  The variation was statisti-
cally not significant.
Discussion:
Provisional restorations are fabricated to protect the
freshly prepared tooth structure during the period
between tooth preparation and insertion of the defin-
itive restoration.  These restorations are also referred
to in the literature as interim, temporary or provision-
al restorations (prostheses).  Such restorations should
be uncomplicated and inexpensive to fabricate in a
short period of time.  Several laboratory and clinical
techniques for the fabrication of provisional restora-
tions have been described in the literature, such as the
indirect technique, direct technique and indirect
direct techniques for both single and multiple unit
restorations2.
Crispin et al. evaluated marginal accuracy with direct

Fabrication of provisional restoration on tooth

62

Group/ Grade I Grade II P value
Follow up No. (%) No. (%)

Biocompatibility

Day 7 0.0001***
Group A 20 (100.0) 0
Group B 6 (30.0) 14 (70.0)

Day 15 0.0001***
Group A 19 (95.0) 1 (5.0)
Group B 7 (35.0) 13 (65.0)

Group A 1.000ns
Day 7 20 (100.0) 0
Day 15 19 (95.0) 1 (5.0)

Group B 1.000ns
Day 7 6 (30.0) 14 (70.0)
Day 15 7 (35.0) 13 (65.0

Group A : Indirect technique (n=20)
Group B : Direct technique (n=20)

Fisher's exact test, ns = Not significant,
*** = Significant at P<0.001

Table 2:  Biocompatibility of provisional
restoration

Group/ Grade I Grade II P value
Follow up No. (%) No. (%)

Aesthetic status

Day 7
Group A 20 (100.0) 0
Group B 20 (100.0) 0

Day 15 0.605ns
Group A 19 (95.0) 1 (5.0)
Group B 17 (85.0) 3 (15.0)

Group A 1.000ns
Day 7 20 (100.0) 0
Day 15 19 (95.0) 1 (5.0)

Group B 0.231ns
Day 7 20 (100.0) 0
Day 15 17 (85.0) 3 (15.0)

Group A : Indirect technique (n=20)
Group B : Direct technique (n=20)
Fisher's exact test, ns = Not significant

Table 3:  Aesthetic status of provisional
restoration



and indirect techniques.  They reported that indirect
fabrication provided significant improvements in
marginal fit relative to direct method when methyl-
meth acrylate resin was used.  They demonstrated
that marginal fit of polymethyl methyacrylate
restoration could be improved by up to 70% with an
indirect technique9.
Monday and Blais observed that the marginal fit of
provisional restorations that have been polymerized
undistributed on stone cast was significantly better
than provisional that have been removed from mouth
before becoming rigid10.  Rosentiel and Gegauff
reported that cementation of provisional restoration
with zinc oxide eugenol cement reduced surface
hardness that might result in margin discrepancy11.
Lepe et al. reported that volumetric polymerization
shrinkage of polymethylmeth acrylate was 6% which
would play an important role in fit of a provisional
restoration12.
Yannikakis et al. immersed provisional materials into
various staining solutions for up to one month.  They
reported that all the materials showed perceptible
colour changes after one week.  After one month, the
methyl methacrylate materials exhibited the best
colour stability13.
Waerhaug and Zander found that there were presence
of plaque material in areas with poor marginal adap-
tation and roughness of interim restoration which was
a constant source of gingival inflammation14.
Garvin et al. concluded that periodontal inflamma-
tion associated with provisional treatment could be
expected to be a reversible process provided that the
amount of gingival irritation is minimal and provi-
sional treatment occurs over a short time span15.
Hensten Pettersen and Helgeland reported that there
was no contact of free monomer with the prepared
tooth or gingiva which might cause tissue damage in
indirect technique16.
Yannikasis et al. immersed provisional materials in
various stating solution for up to one month and
reported that all materials showed perceptible colour
changes after one week, and after one month the
methylmethacrylate materials exhibited the best
colour stability13.
In our study, we selected two group of patients for
insertion of provisional restorations fabricated by
indirect technique (group A, n=20) and another group
of patients for insertion of provisional restorations
fabricated by direct technique (group B, n=20).  We
evaluated marginal accuracy according to the

California Dental Association Quality Evaluation
System7.  Marginal adaptation on day 7 showed that
75% patients of group A and 40% patients of group B
were in grade I.  On day 15, 20% group B patients
were in grade I.  The cause of marginal discrepancy
was volumetric shrinkage of the resin restoration and
dissolution of luting agent.  Though zinc oxide
eugenol cement reduces surface hardness, it was used
for easy removal of the restoration and its easy avail-
ability.  Marginal adaptation of provisional restora-
tions fabricated by indirect technique showed similar
results as above studies.
In our study, analysis of biocompatibility showed that
after 7, 100% patients of group A and 30% patients of
group B were in grade I, i.e. no bleeding on probing
and no plaque accumulation; and 70% patients of
group B were in grade II, i.e. mild to moderate bleed-
ing on probing.  On day 15, 95% patients of group A
and 35% in group B were in grade I, and 65%
patients of group B were in grade II.  The percentage
of bleeding on probing in direct provisional restora-
tions were higher than indirect provisional restora-
tion.  The cause of gingival tissue inflammation was
due to irritation from the irregular margin of the
restoration where place accumulated.  Our result is
similar to the above studies as because provisional
restorations prepared with direct technique shows
more marginal discrepancy.
In our study, on day 7, aesthetic status of all the
patients of both the groups were grade I, i.e. exactly
similar to adjacent/contralateral lateral teeth.  On day
15, aesthetic status of 95% group A and 85% of group
B patients was grade I.  The difference was marginal,
which indicates that aesthetic statu of provisional
restorations prepared by any technique with the same
material, like polymethylmethacrylate show minor
difference.
It has been reported that provisional restorations fab-
ricated indirectly have superior margins to those from
direct techniques because the acrylic resin polymer-
izes in an undisturbed mater17-18.  Polymerizing
autopolymerizing acrylic resin under heat and pres-
sure improves the physical properties of the material.
Reinforming the vacuum or pressure formed matrix
allows it to be secured to the cast on which the provi-
sional shell is polymerized19-21.  Moreover, fabri-
cating a provisional restoration wholly or in part
using an indirect method reduces exposure of oral tis-
sues to monomer, heat, shrinkage and reduces the
volume of volatile hydrocarbons inhaled by a
patient18,22.

Choudhury M,  Nahar N, Yazdi S, Choudhury  F,  Sultana A

63



Most patients, however, require a more conventional
approach.  Fabricating provisional restorations
directly on teeth using the 'direct method' is suitable
for single units and up to 4 unit partial denture provi-
sional restorations23.
Conclusion:
Provisional restorations fabricated by direct tech-
nique though cheaper and easier to fabricate but have
certain disadvantages, like it shows poort marginal
adaptation because of polymerization shrinkage, its
residual monomer causes tissue inflammation and
exothermic heat of polymerization causes pulpal
damage and discomfort to the patient.  On the other

hand, indirect provisionals have certain advanges,
such as, stronger and durable material like acrylic
resin can be used, any aesthetic or occlusal change
can be made on an articulator, no contact of free
monomer with the prepared tooth or gingival that can
cause tissue damage, and marginal fit is better.
Although longer time is required to fabricate an indi-
rect provisional restoration, it reduces the clinical
time.  We may conclude that marginal adaptation,
aesthetic and biocompatibility, fabrication of provi-
sional restorations by indirect technique on a freshly
prepared tooth is better than restorations fabricated
by direct technique.

Fabrication of provisional restoration on tooth

64

References:
1. Christensen GJ. The fastest and best provisional restora-
tions. J Am Dent Assoc 2003; 134:397.
http://dx.doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2003.0233

2. Schwedhelm ER. Direct technique for the fabrication of
acrylic provisional restorations. J Contemp Dental Pract
2006; 7:10 25.

3. Nallaswamy D. Textbook of prosthodontics. 1st ed.
Calcutta: Jaypee Brothers, 2003: p.639.

4. Moore BK, Wang RL. A comparison of resins for fabricat-
ing provisional fixed restorations. Int J Prosthodon 1989;
2:173 84.

5. Amel EM, Phinney TL. Fixed provisional restorations for
extended preprothodontic treatment. J Oral Implant 1995;
21:201 6.

6. Powel DB, Nicholls JI, Youdelis RA. A comparison of
wire and Kevlar reinforced provisional restorations. Int J
Prosthodon 1994; 7:81 9.

7. California Dental Association. Quality evaluation system.
2004.

8. Carranza. The textbook of periodontology, 10th ed.
Philadelphia: WB Saunders Company, 2007: p.80.

9. Crispin BJ, Caputo AA. Color stability of temporary
restorative materials. J Prosthet Dent 1979; 42:27 33.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(79)90326-3

10. Monday JJ, Blais D. Marginal adaptation of provisional
acrylic resin crowns. J Prosthet Dent 1985; 54:194 7.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(85)90285-9

11. Rosenstiel SF, Gegauff AG. Effect of provisional cement-
ing agents on provisional resin. J Prosthet Dent 1988; 59:29.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(88)90102-3

12. Lepe X, Bales DJ, Johnson GH. Retention of provision-
al crowns fabricated from two materials with the use of four
temporary cements. J Prosthet Dent 1999; 81:469 75.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(99)80016-X

13. Yannikasis SA. Zissis AJ, Polyzoois GL, Caroni C. Color
stability of provisional resin restorative materials. J Prosthet
Dent 1998; 80:539 53.

14. Waerhaug J, Zander HA. Reaction of the gingival tissue
to self curing acrylic restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 1957;
54:760 8.

15. Garvin PH, Malone WP, Toto PD, Mazur B. Effect of self
curing acrylic resin treatment restorations on the crevicular
fluid volume. J Prosthet Dent 1973; 47:284 9.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(82)90158-5

16. Hensten Pettersen A, Helgeland K. Sensitivity of differ-
ent human cell lines in the biologic evaluation of dental resin
based restorative materials. Scand J Dent 1981; 89:102.

17. Moulding MB, Loney RW, Ritsco RG. Marginal accura-
cy of indirect provisional restorations fabricated on
poly(vinyl siloxane) models. Int J Prosthodont 1994; 7:554
6.

18. Fisher DW, Shillingburg HT Jr, Dewhirst RB. Indirect
temporary restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 1971; 82:160 3.

19. Fox CW, Abrams BL, Doukoudakis A. Provisional
restoration for altered occlusions. J Prosthet Dent 1984;
52:567 72.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(84)90350-0

20. Cho GC, Chee WW. Custom characterization of the pro-
visional restoration. J Prosthet Dent 1993; 69:529 32.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(93)90165-K

21. Rudick GS. Fabrication and duplication of a temporary
acrylic resin splint. J Prosthet Dent 1972; 28:318 24.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(72)90226-0

22. Kucey BK, Matrices in metal ceramics. J Prosthet Dent
1990; 63:32 7.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(90)90261-A

23. Kopp FR. Esthetic principles for full crown restorations.
Part II: Provisionalization. J Esthet Dent 1993; 5:258 64.




