BACKGROUND: Despite their wide use in implant dentistry, there is insufficient information concerning the retentive strength of cement-retained superstructures. PURPOSE: This study compared the retentive strength of metal copings on prefabricated abutments with five different luting cements. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight prefabricated abutments were placed on titanium screw implants torqued to 35 Ncm. Metal copings were cast with Au-Pt-Pd alloy (DeguDent Universal, Degussa, Hanau, Germany) using burnt-out plastic copings. Cements used were zinc oxide-eugenol-free temporary (ZO), zinc phosphate (ZP), glass ionomer (GI), resin-reinforced glass ionomer (RG), and composite resin (CR) cements. Retentive strength was measured with a universal testing machine. The means of each group were compared by one-way analysis of variance and Tukey-Kramer multiple-comparison intervals at a significance level of p < .05. RESULTS: The mean +/- SD retentive strength of the cements in Newtons was ZO 56 +/- 12 (Tukey group C), ZP 158 +/- 79 (Tukey group B), GI 132 +/- 29 (Tukey group B), RG 477 +/- 52 (Tukey group A), and CR 478 +/- 50 (Tukey group A). CONCLUSION: The retentive strength of metal copings on implant abutments is somewhat different from those of conventional cemented restorations on natural teeth. These differences may be influenced by differences in surface roughness and the height of the abutment.
BACKGROUND: Despite their wide use in implant dentistry, there is insufficient information concerning the retentive strength of cement-retained superstructures. PURPOSE: This study compared the retentive strength of metal copings on prefabricated abutments with five different luting cements. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight prefabricated abutments were placed on titanium screw implants torqued to 35 Ncm. Metal copings were cast with Au-Pt-Pd alloy (DeguDent Universal, Degussa, Hanau, Germany) using burnt-out plastic copings. Cements used were zinc oxide-eugenol-free temporary (ZO), zinc phosphate (ZP), glass ionomer (GI), resin-reinforced glass ionomer (RG), and composite resin (CR) cements. Retentive strength was measured with a universal testing machine. The means of each group were compared by one-way analysis of variance and Tukey-Kramer multiple-comparison intervals at a significance level of p < .05. RESULTS: The mean +/- SD retentive strength of the cements in Newtons was ZO 56 +/- 12 (Tukey group C), ZP 158 +/- 79 (Tukey group B), GI 132 +/- 29 (Tukey group B), RG 477 +/- 52 (Tukey group A), and CR 478 +/- 50 (Tukey group A). CONCLUSION: The retentive strength of metal copings on implant abutments is somewhat different from those of conventional cemented restorations on natural teeth. These differences may be influenced by differences in surface roughness and the height of the abutment.