An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Various Luting Cements on the Retention of Implant-Supported Metal Crowns

Abstract

Background and objective Cement-retained prostheses have replaced screw-retained prostheses as the preferred restoration in recent years in order to overcome the latter's limitations. In this study, four different luting cements were compared to evaluate their efficacy on the retention of cement-based metal crowns to implant abutments. Materials and methods In the right and left first molar regions, four implant analogs (Internal Hex, Adin Dental Implant Systems Ltd., Tel-Aviv, Israel) were screwed into epoxy resin casts (Araldite CY 230-1 IN, India) that were positioned perpendicular to the cast's plane. Four metal copings were created and cemented. Group A: polycarboxylate cement (DUR) (DurelonTM, 3M Espe, St. Paul, MN); Group B: PANAVIA™ F 2.0 dual-cure resin cement (Kuraray America, Inc., New York, NY); Group C: resin-modified glass ionomer (3M™ RelyX™ Luting, 3M Espe); and Group D: non-eugenol temporary resin cement (Kerr-Temp, KaVo Kerr, Brea, CA) were used to cement crowns. To check the retention capacity, samples were put through a pull-out test on an Instron universal testing machine (TSI‑Tecsol, Bengaluru, India) with a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Each coping's de-cementing load was noted, and average values for every sample were computed and statistically analyzed. Results The findings demonstrated that non-eugenol temporary resin implant cement has the lowest retention value at 138.256 N, followed by resin-modified glass ionomer cement at 342.063 N, polycarboxylate luting cement at 531.362 N, and resin cement at 674.065 N. The average difference in retentive strength across all four groups was statistically very significant (p=0.001). Conclusion Based on our findings, non-eugenol temporary resin implant cement enables simple retrievability of the prosthesis in the event of a future failure and is appropriate for implant restorations with cement retention. Also, cements made of polycarboxylate and resin have the highest retention values.

Cytotoxicity of dental cement on soft tissue associated with dental implants at different time intervals

“…1 In addition they provide better occlusion, loading characteristics streamlined clinical and treatment procedures. 2 Dental professionals often choose dental cement for CRISP based on preferences of the product's characteristics, such as material properties, mixing method, delivery system, or consistency. [3][4][5] There are many kinds of luting dental cement that can be usedto lute bridges, crowns, veneers, and implant crowns, and dental materials that are biocompatible are gaining more attention from dentists and patients.…”

Cytotoxicity of dental cement on soft tissue associated with dental implants at different time intervals

“…1 In addition they provide better occlusion, loading characteristics streamlined clinical and treatment procedures. 2 Dental professionals often choose dental cement for CRISP based on preferences of the product's characteristics, such as material properties, mixing method, delivery system, or consistency. [3][4][5] There are many kinds of luting dental cement that can be usedto lute bridges, crowns, veneers, and implant crowns, and dental materials that are biocompatible are gaining more attention from dentists and patients.…”