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
. 2012 Jan;9(1):13-8.
doi: 10.4103/1735-3327.92921.

Retentiveness of implant-supported metal copings using different luting agents

Farahnaz Nejatidanesh  1 , Omid Savabi, Maziar Ebrahimi, Ghazal Savabi
Affiliations

Retentiveness of implant-supported metal copings using different luting agents

Farahnaz Nejatidanesh et al. Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2012 Jan.

Abstract

Background: With regard to potential retrievability of cement-retained implant restorations, the retentive strength of the luting agents is critical. The aim of this study was to evaluate the retention values of implant-supported metal copings using different luting agents.

Materials and methods: Twenty ITI implant analogs and solid abutments of 5.5-mm height were embedded vertically in autopolymerizing acrylic resin blocks. Metal copings with a loop on the occlusal surface were fabricated using base metal alloy (Rexillium III). The copings were luted using eight cements with different retention mechanisms (Panavia F2.0, Fuji Plus, Fleck's, Poly F, Fuji I, Temp Bond, GC-free eugenol, and TempSpan) under static load of 5 kg (n=10). All specimens were incubated at 37°C for 24 hours, conditioned in artificial saliva for 7 days and thermocycled for 5000 cycles (5-55°C). The dislodging force was measured using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 5 mm/min. Statistical analyses were performed using Kruskal-Wallis (α=0.05) and Mann-Whitney tests with Bonferroni correction (α=0.001).

Results: Fuji Plus and TempSpan had the highest and the least mean retentive strength, respectively (320.97±161.47, 3.39±2.33). There was no significant difference between Fuji Plus, Fleck's, Ploy F, and Panavia F2.0. These cements were superior to provisional cements and Fuji I (P<0.001) which showed statistically same retentive strength.

Conclusion: Within the conditions of this study, the resin modified glass ionomer, zinc phosphate, zinc polycarboxylate, and Panavia F2.0 had statistically the same retentive quality and are recommended for definitive cementation of single implant-supported restorations. The provisional cements and glass ionomer may allow retrievability of these restorations.

Keywords: Cementation methods; dental cement; dental prosthesis; dental prosthesis/retention; implant-supported.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Luted metal coping during pull out test by universal testing machine
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Hebel KS, Gajjar RC. Cement-retained versus screw-retained implant restorations: Achieving optimal occlusion and esthetics in implant dentistry. J Prosthet Dent. 1997;77:28–35. - PubMed
    1. Chee WW, Torbati A, Albouy JP. Retrievable cemented implant restorations. J Prosthodont. 1998;7:120–5. - PubMed
    1. Michalakis KX, Hirayama H, Garefis PD. Cement-retained versus screw-retained implant restorations: A critical review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2003;18:719–28. - PubMed
    1. Kwan N, Yang S, Guillaume D, Aboyoussef H, Ganz SD, Weiner S. Resistance to crown displacement on a hexagonal implant abutment. Implant Dent. 2004;13:112–9. - PubMed
    1. Sheets JL, Wilcox C, Wilwerding T. Cement selection for cement-retained crown technique with dental implants. J Prosthodont. 2008;17:92–6. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources