The selection criteria of temporary or permanent luting agents in implant-supported prostheses: in vitro study.

Abstract

PURPOSEThe use of temporary or permanent cements in fixed implant-supported prostheses is under discussion. The objective was to compare the retentiveness of one temporary and two permanent cements after cyclic compressive loading.MATERIALS AND METHODSThe working model was five solid abutments screwed to five implant analogs. Thirty Cr-Ni alloy copings were randomized and cemented to the abutments with one temporary (resin urethane-based) or two permanent (resin-modified glass ionomer, resin-composite) cements. The retention strength was measured twice: once after the copings were cemented and again after a compressive cyclic loading of 100 N at 0.72 Hz (100,000 cycles).RESULTSBefore loading, the retention strength of resin composite was 75% higher than the resin-modified glass ionomer and 2.5 times higher than resin urethanebased cement. After loading, the retentiveness of the three cements decreased in a non-uniform manner. The greatest percentage of retention loss was shown by the temporary cement and the lowest by the permanent resin composite. However, the two permanent cements consistently show high retention values.CONCLUSIONThe higher the initial retention of each cement, the lower the percentage of retention loss after compressive cyclic loading. After loading, the resin urethane-based cement was the most favourable cement for retrieving the crowns and resin composite was the most favourable cement to keep them in place.