Retention of luting agents used for implant-supported restorations: A comparative In-Vitro study


Aladag A., Sahan M. H. , Akkus N. O. , Aktas R.

NIGERIAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PRACTICE, vol.23, no.8, pp.1073-1078, 2020 (Journal Indexed in SCI) identifier identifier identifier

  • Publication Type: Article / Article
  • Volume: 23 Issue: 8
  • Publication Date: 2020
  • Doi Number: 10.4103/njcp.njcp_590_19
  • Title of Journal : NIGERIAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PRACTICE
  • Page Numbers: pp.1073-1078

Abstract

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 mu m Al2O3, 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.