With provisional restorations, properties such as flexural strength play a key role in maintaining the abutment teeth in position over the interim period until the final restorations are placed. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the flexural strength of four commonly used provisional resin materials. Ten identical 25 × 2 × 2 mm specimens were made from four different groups of provisional resin material, namely 1: SR Ivocron (Ivoclar Vivadent) cold-polymerized poly-methyl methacrylate (PMMA), 2: S Ivocron (Ivoclar Vivadent) heat-polymerized PMMA, 3: Protemp (3M Germany-ESPE) auto-polymerized bis-acryl composite, and 4: Revotek LC (GC Corp, Tokyo) light-polymerized urethane dimethacrylate resin. The mean values of the flexural strength of each group were calculated and the data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey post hoc tests. The mean values (MPa) were as follows: for cold-polymerized PMMA, it was 125.90 MPa; for heat-polymerized PMMA, it was 140.00 MPa, with auto-polymerized bis-acryl composite 133.00 MPa; and for light-polymerized urethane dimethacrylate resin, it was 80.84 MPa. Thus, the highest flexural strength was recorded with heat-polymerized PMMA and the lowest flexural strength with light-polymerized urethane dimethacrylate resin, which was significantly low. The study did not detect a significant difference in the flexural strengths of cold PMMA, hot PMMA, and auto bis-acryl composite.

Background: Implant placement using a conventional surgical guide and digital surgical guide techniques is well documented in the literature. The most frequently reported disadvantages of conventional surgical guide placement are lack of accuracy in implant placement when compared to three-dimensional assessment in digital technique. Other factors listed are longer time duration and the need for impression techniques. In this case report, the authors present a comparison between the two techniques and the time taken between both cases one done conventionally and another case by digital technique. Case Presentation: For the digital surgical guide, a 44-year-old, male reported with the chief complaint of missing teeth needing replacement was considered. For the conventional technique, a female patient aged fifty-seven who had gone through various dentists with an existing bridge was considered. This patient wanted a good outcome at a reasonable cost. In both cases, molars were missing and needed replacement. The steps for digital flow for a surgical guide and step-by-step conventional methods are both highlighted in this article. Conclusion: Hence the digital technique saved time and was accurate when compared to the conventional in our experience.