Aladag, A.Sahan, M. H.Akkus, N. O.Aktas, R.2024-05-252024-05-25202011119-307710.4103/njcp.njcp_590_192-s2.0-85089616263https://doi.org/10.4103/njcp.njcp_590_19https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14517/2138Aims: 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.eninfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessCemented abutmentsfixed prosthesisrestoration removalArticleQ4Q223810731078WOS:00056528610000832788484