• A Aladag, M H Sahan, N O Akkus, and R Aktas.
• Mugla Sıtkı Koçman University, School of Dentistry, Department of Prosthodontics, Mugla, Turkey.
• Niger J Clin Pract. 2020 Aug 1; 23 (8): 1073-1078.

AimsThe aim of this study was to compare the retention of different luting agents used with implant-supported restorations.Materials And MethodsA 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 μm Al2O3, the copings were cemented on frameworks and stored in artificial saliva for 48 h at 37°C and thermocycled between 5-55°C for 37,500 cycles. Samples were subjected to tensile testing by a universal testing machine, and data were statistically analyzed.ResultsThe 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).ConclusionNeither 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.

17 keywords...

hide…