Retention of luting agents used for implant-supported restorations: A comparative In-Vitro study

dc.authorscopusid 24464038700
dc.authorscopusid 57190580722
dc.authorscopusid 57214113189
dc.authorscopusid 37085111400
dc.authorwosid Şahan, Makbule Heval/HGD-3556-2022
dc.contributor.author Aladag, A.
dc.contributor.author Sahan, M. H.
dc.contributor.author Akkus, N. O.
dc.contributor.author Aktas, R.
dc.date.accessioned 2024-05-25T12:29:45Z
dc.date.available 2024-05-25T12:29:45Z
dc.date.issued 2020
dc.department Okan University en_US
dc.department-temp [Aladag, A.] Mugla Sitki Kocman Univ, Sch Dent, Dept Prosthodont, Mugla, Turkey; [Sahan, M. H.; Aktas, R.] Ege Univ, Dept Prosthodont, Sch Dent, Izmir, Turkey; [Akkus, N. O.] Istanbul Okan Univ, Sch Dent, Dept Prosthodont, TR-34947 Istanbul, Turkey en_US
dc.description.abstract Aims: The aim of this study was to compare the retention of different luting agents used with implant-supported restorations. Materials and Methods: A total of 90 custom metal frameworks and copings were prepared and divided into six different luting agent groups (n = 15/group): polycarboxylate cement (PC), resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (RMGIC), two self-adhesive resin cements (SARC), copper-ion zinc-phosphate cement (CZPC), and non-eugenol temporary resin cement (TRC). After sandblasting with 50 mu m Al2O3, the copings were cemented on frameworks and stored in artificial saliva for 48 h at 37 degrees C and thermocycled between 5-55 degrees C for 37,500 cycles. Samples were subjected to tensile testing by a universal testing machine, and data were statistically analyzed. Results: The differences between the retention values of types of cement were significant (P < 0.05). The maximum retention value was calculated for CZPC (755,12 +/- 55 MPa) while the lowest value was for TRC (311,7 +/- 61 Mpa). Conclusion: Neither of the tested cement had superiority over another to ensuring retention. The types of cement presented were meant to be a discretionary guide for the clinician in deciding the amount of the desired retention between castings and abutments. en_US
dc.identifier.citationcount 1
dc.identifier.doi 10.4103/njcp.njcp_590_19
dc.identifier.endpage 1078 en_US
dc.identifier.issn 1119-3077
dc.identifier.issue 8 en_US
dc.identifier.pmid 32788484
dc.identifier.scopus 2-s2.0-85089616263
dc.identifier.scopusquality Q2
dc.identifier.startpage 1073 en_US
dc.identifier.uri https://doi.org/10.4103/njcp.njcp_590_19
dc.identifier.uri https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14517/2138
dc.identifier.volume 23 en_US
dc.identifier.wos WOS:000565286100008
dc.identifier.wosquality Q4
dc.language.iso en
dc.publisher Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications en_US
dc.relation.publicationcategory Makale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanı en_US
dc.rights info:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess en_US
dc.scopus.citedbyCount 1
dc.subject Cemented abutments en_US
dc.subject fixed prosthesis en_US
dc.subject restoration removal en_US
dc.title Retention of luting agents used for implant-supported restorations: A comparative In-Vitro study en_US
dc.type Article en_US
dc.wos.citedbyCount 1

Files