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
. 2019 Apr-Jun;19(2):166-172.
doi: 10.4103/jips.jips_235_18.

An in vitro study to compare the influence of newer luting cements on retention of cement-retained implant-supported prosthesis

Hasan Sarfaraz  1 , Arifa Hassan  1 , K Kamalakanth Shenoy  1 , Mallika Shetty  1
Affiliations

An in vitro study to compare the influence of newer luting cements on retention of cement-retained implant-supported prosthesis

Hasan Sarfaraz et al. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2019 Apr-Jun.

Abstract

Purpose: The study was conducted to evaluate the retentiveness of specifically formulated implant cements and compare its retentiveness with a commonly used noneugenol zinc oxide luting cement and also to assess the influence of abutment height on the retentiveness of these cements.

Materials and methods: A master stainless steel mold was used to mount snappy abutment-implant analog complex in acrylic resin. A total of six snappy abutments (Nobel Biocare®) of 4 mm and 5.5 mm height with their analogs were used. A total of 66 ceramill® Sintron metal copings fabricated using computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing system and divided into six groups (n = 11) according to the height (three 4 mm abutment and three 5.5 mm abutment). The cements that were compared were a Noneugenol zinc oxide provisional cement (Temp-Bond™ NE), a Noneugenol temporary resin cement (Premier® Implant Cement) and a resin based acrylic urethane cement (Implalute® Implant Cement). After cementation samples were immersed in artificial saliva for 7 days and subjected to a pull-out test using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. The load required to de-cement each coping was recorded and analyzed using one-way ANOVA, post hoc multiple comparison, and independent t-test.

Results: Noneugenol temporary resin cement had the highest tensile strength followed by noneugenol zinc oxide cement and the least retentive strength was observed in resin-based acrylic urethane cement.

Conclusion: The results suggest that noneugenol temporary resin cement may be considered as a better choice for cementation of implant prosthesis, as it has shown to have better mechanical properties.

Keywords: Acrylic urethane cement; implant luting cements; resin-based temporary cement; tensile strength.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

There are no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Luting cements used
Figure 2
Figure 2
Ceramill Mind software – coping design
Figure 3
Figure 3
Application of load
Figure 4
Figure 4
Crown pull test using universal testing machine
Figure 5
Figure 5
Close-up of testing sample
Figure 6
Figure 6
The mean tensile strength in MPa for different cement groups of two different abutment heights (4 and 5.5 mm)
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Manawar A, Dhanasekar B, Aparna IN, Naim H. Factors influencing success of cement versus screw-retained implant restorations: A clinical review. J Osseointegration. 2012;4:43–7.
    1. Singer A, Serfaty V. Cement-retained implant-supported fixed partial dentures: A 6-month to 3-year follow-up. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1996;11:645–9. - PubMed
    1. Chee W, Jivraj S. Screw versus cemented implant supported restorations. Br Dent J. 2006;201:501–7. - 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. 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