Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2000 Jul-Aug;15(4):545-9.

Cement failure loads of 4 provisional luting agents used for the cementation of implant-supported fixed partial dentures

K X Michalakis  1 , A L Pissiotis, H Hirayama
Affiliations
  • PMID: 10960988
Comparative Study

Cement failure loads of 4 provisional luting agents used for the cementation of implant-supported fixed partial dentures

K X Michalakis et al. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000 Jul-Aug.

Abstract

The major disadvantage of cement-retained implant-supported fixed partial dentures (FPDs) is difficulty in retrievability. The retentive strengths of the provisional luting agents usually employed in these cases are therefore an important consideration. This study evaluated the cement failure loads of 4 provisional luting agents used for the cementation of FPDs supported by 2 implants or 4 implants. Nogenol luting agent exhibited the lowest retentive values in both types of FPD. ImProv proved to be the most retentive cement of all tested. Temp Bond NE and Temp Bond presented significantly different values (P < .05) for the 2-implant FPD, but not for the 4-implant model. On the basis of the study results, it may be concluded that Nogenol appears to be more appropriate for cementation of both 2- and 4-implant-supported FPDs when removal of the provisionally cemented superstructure is anticipated.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types