2013The International Journal of ProsthodonticsRequires access

Retentiveness of Various Luting Agents Used with Implant-Supported Prostheses: A Preliminary In Vitro Study

Pooja Garg, Gaurav Gupta, DR Prithviraj, Malesh Pujari

Open publisher page 22 citations

Abstract

The aim of this preliminary in vitro study was to compare the retentiveness of a luting agent designed for use with dental implants to luting agents designed for use with tooth-retained restorations. The following luting agents were tested: (1) implant cement, (2) resin-bonded zinc oxide-eugenol cement, (3) zinc phosphate cement, (4) zinc polycarboxylate cement, and (5) glass-ionomer cement. After cementation, each sample was subjected to a pull-out test using a universal testing machine, and the loads required to remove the crowns were recorded. The mean values and standard deviations of cement failure loads were analyzed using analysis of variance and the Bonferroni test. The mean cement failure loads (N) were 333.86 ± 18.91 for implant cement, 394.62 ± 9.76 for resin-bonded zinc oxide-eugenol cement, 629.30 ± 20.65 for zinc phosphate cement, 810.08 ± 11.52 for zinc polycarboxylate cement, and 750.17 ± 13.78 for glass-ionomer cement. The retention provided by polycarboxylate cement was significantly greater than that of all other luting agents; the implant cement showed the lowest retention values. These preliminary in vitro observations need to be confirmed under conditions that more closely approximate the clinical environment.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

The aim of this preliminary in vitro study was to compare the retentiveness of a luting agent designed for use with dental implants to luting agents designed for use with tooth-retained restorations. The following luting agents were tested: (1) implant cement, (2) resin-bonded zinc oxide-eugenol cement, (3) zinc phosphate cement, (4) zinc polycarboxylate cement, and (5) glass-ionomer cement. After cementation, each sample was subjected to a pull-out test using a universal testing machine, and the loads required to remove the crowns were recorded. The mean values and standard deviations of cement failure loads were analyzed using analysis of variance and the Bonferroni test. The mean cement failure loads (N) were 333.86 ± 18.91 for implant cement, 394.62 ± 9.76 for resin-bonded zinc oxide-eugenol cement, 629.30 ± 20.65 for zinc phosphate cement, 810.08 ± 11.52 for zinc polycarboxylate cement, and 750.17 ± 13.78 for glass-ionomer cement. The retention provided by polycarboxylate cement was significantly greater than that of all other luting agents; the implant cement showed the lowest retention values. These preliminary in vitro observations need to be confirmed under conditions that more closely approximate the clinical environment.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 22 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

The aim of this preliminary in vitro study was to compare the retentiveness of a luting agent designed for use with dental implants to luting agents designed for use with tooth-retained restorations. The following luting agents were tested: (1) implant cement, (2) resin-bonded zinc oxide-eugenol cement, (3) zinc phosphate cement, (4) zinc polycarboxylate cement, and (5) glass-ionomer cement. After cementation, each sample was subjected to a pull-out test using a universal testing machine, and the loads required to remove the crowns were recorded. The mean values and standard deviations of cement failure loads were analyzed using analysis of variance and the Bonferroni test. The mean cement failure loads (N) were 333.86 ± 18.91 for implant cement, 394.62 ± 9.76 for resin-bonded zinc oxide-eugenol cement, 629.30 ± 20.65 for zinc phosphate cement, 810.08 ± 11.52 for zinc polycarboxylate cement, and 750.17 ± 13.78 for glass-ionomer cement. The retention provided by polycarboxylate cement was significantly greater than that of all other luting agents; the implant cement showed the lowest retention values. These preliminary in vitro observations need to be confirmed under conditions that more closely approximate the clinical environment.

Key concepts: Cement, Zinc phosphate, Cementation (geology), Luting agent, Dental cement, Materials science, Glass ionomer cement, Dentistry

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Retentiveness of Various Luting Agents Used with Implant-Supported Prostheses: A Preliminary In Vitro Study — Research Paper | ScholarLens