Introduction: Fit and surface quality of provisional crowns affect plaque adhesion and may cause gingival inflammation. Polishing temporary restorations in the dental lab gives excellent surface quality but is time consuming and has the risk of cross contamination due to contaminated pumice. Aim of this study was to describe the surface qualities of four different resin materials for fabrication of fixed provisional restorations after chairside polish with four recently developed polishing devices and to compare the results with the surface qualities which can be achieved by polishing in the dental lab. Material and Methods: The specimens of autopolymerizing and bis- acryl- composite materials were made according to the manufacturer's instructions. All were ground to produce a uniform and standard surface quality. Afterwards specimens of each material were polished chairside (testgroup) and in the dental lab in a standardized procedure (controlgroup). The surfaces before and after treatment were investigated by means of SEM and surface roughness measurements (Rz and Ra). Differences were statistically tested for significance by Kruskal-Wallace-Test and Man-Whitney-Test (Bonferroni, pResults: There were important differences between the surface qualities of dental lab polish and chairside devices in all acrylic materials. Dental lab polish provided the best results. The differences within the three rubber devices were not significant. The tested diamond finishing instruments produced inferior surface qualities in acrylic materials. Conclusion: Dental lab polish produced the best surface qualities in all materials. There were differences between several chairside polishing devices. However, all tested rubber polishing devices produced acceptable surface qualities for a short term application of provisional restorations. Schlagwörter: provisional restorations, chairside polishing, surface roughness, resin