Retentive strength, disintegration, and marginal quality of luting cements

Gorodovsky, Sergio; Zidan, Omar

doi:10.1016/0022-3913(92)90328-8

Cited by 81 publications

(61 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Among the tested cements, results showed that glass polyalkenoate cements and polycarboxylate cements had moderate retentive properties, and that the retentive strength of the former was similar to or higher than that of the latter [25][26][27][28] . However, in an evaluation of 11 types of cements used for implantsupported restorations, Sheets et al reported that UltraTemp (regular set), a polycarboxylate provisional cement, was more retentive than Ketac Cem Aplicap, a GIC, and that it was ranked the highest among the 11 types of cements 29) .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

New glass polyalkenoate temporary cement for cement-retained implant restoration: Evaluation of elevation and retentive strength

Naito

Chen

et al. 2010

Dent. Mater. J.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to evaluate four luting agents for cement-retained implant restorations in two aspects: post-cementation elevation of the superstructure and the retentive strength before and after thermocycling and mechanical cycling. The four evaluated luting agents were: new glass polyalkenoate hard-type (GH) and soft-type (GS) cements, polycarboxylate hard-type (HH) and softtype (HS) cements. Elevation and retentive strength were measured using a CCD laser displacement sensor and a universal testing machine respectively. Elevation increased in this order: GH, GS, HH, and HS. Thermal and mechanical stresses significantly decreased retentive strength, and the mean values exhibited by GH were significantly higher than the other luting agents. The novel glass polyalkenoate cements (hard-and soft-type) experimentally prepared in the present study augured well as luting agents by virtue of their reduced film thickness and their excellent post-cementation retention and elevation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

New glass polyalkenoate temporary cement for cement-retained implant restoration: Evaluation of elevation and retentive strength

Naito

Chen

et al. 2010

Dent. Mater. J.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(14,15 ) The dental cements used for cement retained implant supported restorations may present different effects when compared with those used on teeth. (16) In considering implant abutment-retained crowns.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Abutment Total Occlusal Convergence and Cement Type on Retention of Cement Retained Implant-Supported Restorations

ElHiatmy

AbdelGhany²,

Amin³

2016

ADJ-for Girls

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of abutment total occlusal convergence (TOC), and cement type on the uniaxial tensile resistance to dislodgment of cement-retained, implant-supported metal copings. Six titanium implant abutmnets were constructed using CAD-CAM technology. Two abutments have TOC 6˚, Two abutments have TOC 8˚, and Two abutments have TOC 12˚. Identical copings were cast to fit each abutment with a loop incorporated that was engaged by the testing unit. The copings were cemented using either a resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI) (Rely™ X U 200 Automix) or self adhesive resin cement that contained a 10Methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate (MDP) monomer (Multilink® N). Each of the experimental groups had a unique combination of abutment TOC, and cement.Specimens were aged using a thermocycling unit with water between 5 and 55 degrees Celsius with 15 seconds in each bath and a 5 seconds dwell time, for 540 cycles.A universal testing machine was used to test uniaxial tensile strength. Cement was cleaned using thermal, mechanical, and physical methods, and surface finish was reestablished. This procedure was repeated to obtain different measurements for each group. Surface area for each abutment was calculated and used for the calculation of the tensile strength. One way ANOVA followed by pair-wise Newman-Keuls post-hoc tests were performed to detect significance between subgroups. Pair-wise student t-test was performed to detect interaction between variables of significant effect.P values ≤ 0.05 are considered to be statistically significant in all tests. Regardless of the cement type, totally it was found that Group A recorded the highest retentive force mean values followed by Group B while Group C recorded the lowest retentive force mean values. The difference between all groups was statistically significant (p<0.05). Pairwise Newman-Keuls post-hoc tests showed that the difference between Group A and Group B was statistically non-significant (p>0.05). Irrespective of convergence groups, totally it was found that Multilink N group recorded statistically significant (p<0.05) higher retentive force mean values than Rely X U200 one.

show abstract

“…In these cases, susceptibility to wear increases when margins are located farther from the gingival area and approach the occlusal area [24,40,55], especially when the cavity margins are near occlusal stops or contact areas. It is generally accepted that wear is less pronounced in composite resin cements [21]. Proper fit of the restoration and the higher filler content [56] of composite resin luting cements increase wear resistance of the luting material [69], which decreases linearly with the increase in luting space [31,35,69].…”

Section: Wearmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conventional and adhesive luting cements

Macorra

Pradíes

2002

Clinical Oral Investigations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Luting materials for fixed prosthesis must fulfill special requirements in order to retain indirect restorations and fully maintain the integrity of abutments. The main requirements (inhibition of plaque accumulation, sealing of interface, possible antibacterial effects, acceptable solubility, wear, mechanical properties, adhesion, radiopacity, film thickness, type of curing, esthetics, storage, and cost) are reviewed to update clinical criteria on the selection of suitable materials. It can be concluded that there is no ideal luting material on the market. Alleged improvements in the physical data of newer materials do not necessarily result in better clinical performance. Only clinical trials can confirm the assumed benefits of materials.

show abstract

Retentive strength, disintegration, and marginal quality of luting cements

Cited by 81 publications

References 13 publications

New glass polyalkenoate temporary cement for cement-retained implant restoration: Evaluation of elevation and retentive strength

New glass polyalkenoate temporary cement for cement-retained implant restoration: Evaluation of elevation and retentive strength

Effect of Abutment Total Occlusal Convergence and Cement Type on Retention of Cement Retained Implant-Supported Restorations

Conventional and adhesive luting cements

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About