• H O Gumus, I L Kurtulus, and E Kuru.
• Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Erciyes University, Kayseri, Turkey.
• Niger J Clin Pract. 2018 Dec 1; 21 (12): 1656-1661.

AimTemporary cement can be applied for both permanent and temporary cementation of implant-supported fixed restorations. These cements must have certain physical and mechanical properties. Specifically, the film thickness directly affects the cement's clinical success. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the film thicknesses of six temporary cements before and after thermal cycling.Materials And MethodsEighty-four metal copings with uniform holding loops were fabricated and divided into 12 groups of seven samples each. Six of these groups were subjected to a thermal cycling process. The copings were cemented to solid implant abutments (Implance Solid Abutment, 3.5-mm cervical diameter, 2 mm high, 6° taper, Implance Dental Implant System; AGS Medical, Trabzon, Turkey), using six different types of cement. The fitting surfaces were coated with the luting cements. After steeping in artificial saliva for 24 hours, the specimens were subjected to pull-out testing using an Instron machine. Specimens in the thermal cycling groups were subjected to 700 thermal cycles (36-55°C) prior to pull-out testing.ResultsThe Mann-Whitney U test revealed significant differences between the retention values of the thermal cycling (+) and thermal cycling (-) groups (U = 153.0, P < 0.01). The retention values of the groups subjected to thermal cycling were significantly lower than those of the cements that were not subjected to thermal cycling. Thermal cycling also affected the film thickness significantly (Wilcoxon signed rank test, Z = -5.533, P < 0.001).ConclusionsThermal cycling affects the film thickness and retention of temporary cements significantly. The retention value was significantly higher for glass ionomer cement than for the other cements tested, and this cement also exhibited greatest film thickness.

18 keywords...

hide…