AIMS: The aim of this study was to compare the retention of different luting agents used with implant-supported restorations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 90 custom metal frameworks and copings were prepared and divided into six different luting agent groups (n = 15/group): polycarboxylate cement (PC), resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (RMGIC), two self-adhesive resin cements (SARC), copper-ion zinc-phosphate cement (CZPC), and non-eugenol temporary resin cement (TRC). After sandblasting with 50 mum Al(2)O(3), the copings were cemented on frameworks and stored in artificial saliva for 48 h at 37 degrees C and thermocycled between 5-55 degrees C for 37,500 cycles. Samples were subjected to tensile testing by a universal testing machine, and data were statistically analyzed. RESULTS: The differences between the retention values of types of cement were significant (P < 0.05). The maximum retention value was calculated for CZPC (755,12 +/- 55 MPa) while the lowest value was for TRC (311,7 +/- 61 Mpa). CONCLUSION: Neither of the tested cement had superiority over another to ensuring retention. The types of cement presented were meant to be a discretionary guide for the clinician in deciding the amount of the desired retention between castings and abutments.
No clinical trial protocols linked to this paper
Clinical trials are automatically linked when NCT numbers are found in the paper's title or abstract.PICO Elements
No PICO elements extracted yet. Click "Extract PICO" to analyze this paper.
Paper Details
MeSH Terms
Associated Data
No associated datasets or code repositories found for this paper.
Related Papers
Related paper suggestions will be available in future updates.