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 Dec;21(6):1181-1188.
doi: 10.1111/cid.12850. Epub 2019 Nov 6.

Comparing the marginal leakage and retention of implant-supported restorations cemented by four different dental cements

Mhammad Saleh  1 , Simge Taşar-Faruk  1
Affiliations

Comparing the marginal leakage and retention of implant-supported restorations cemented by four different dental cements

Mhammad Saleh et al. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2019 Dec.

Abstract

Background: Despite the wide use of implants in dentistry, there is insufficient information about the ideal cement for retention.

Purpose: To determine the cement bond strength and marginal leakage of crown and partial denture cemented to implant abutments by four different types of cement.

Materials and methods: Eighty-four direct abutments were divided into eight groups (n = 7). Fifty-six crown and bridge restorations were cemented using zinc phosphate (ZM), temporary cement (TM), resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (GM), and self-adhesive resin cement (RM). After cementation, thermal cycling and incubation in basic fuchsin dye was applied. The maximum load to failure, marginal leakage, and fracture modes were evaluated.

Results: The mean of retention strength for the bridges (874 N) was higher than the crown samples (705 N) (P = .005). The mean of retention strength for each cement group was ZM = 1298, RM = 1027, GM = 646, and TM = 187 N (P ≤ .0001). Marginal leakage was recorded in majority of the samples; the highest incidence was detected for ZM samples. The cement fracture was mostly adhesive in nature.

Conclusion: Self-adhesive resin and resin-modified glass ionomer cement had better mechanical properties to retain implant supported restorations.

Keywords: dental cements; dental implants; marginal leakage; tensile strength.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

REFERENCES

    1. Misch CE. Dental Implant Prosthetics Pageburst E-Book on Kno Retail Passcode. St. Louis, Missouri: Mosby Incorporated; 2014.
    1. Rodriguez LC, Saba JN, Chung K-H, Wadhwani C, Rodrigues DC. In vitro effects of dental cements on hard and soft tissues associated with dental implants. J Prosthet Dent. 2017;118:31-35.
    1. Mansour A, Ercoli C, Graser G, Tallents R, Moss M. Comparative evaluation of casting retention using the ITI solid abutment with six cements. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2002;13:343-348.
    1. Heintze SD. Crown pull-off test (crown retention test) to evaluate the bonding effectiveness of luting agents. Dent Mater. 2010;26:193-206.
    1. Farzin M, Torabi K, Ahangari AH, Derafshi R. Effect of abutment modification and cement type on retention of cement-retained implant supported crowns. J Dent. 2014;11:256-262.

LinkOut - more resources