PURPOSE: To evaluate the luting agents and retentive forces before and after mechanical stressing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sample size N was 12 for each group, and 12 Cera-One closed-end gold cylinders were cemented with three types of luting cements (ImProv, UltraTemp, and TempBond). The force required to remove the gold cylinders from the abutments was determined with an MTS testing machine. After cleaning and recementing the cylinders, the samples were placed in the housings of an Alabama-type three-body wear machine and load of 110 N was applied to the gold cylinders at a frequency of 80 cycles/min for 50,000 cycles. Then each cylinder was pulled from its abutment and the force at which the failure occurred was recorded. The procedure was repeated with 300,000 cycles. RESULTS: Statistical analysis arising from two-way ANOVA found that the forces required to remove the abutments were significantly different. The most retentive cement was ImProv. Before cyclic loading, on average, ImProv produced a retentive value 85% higher than that yielded by TempBond, and 25% higher than that of UltraTemp. The three cements were significantly different at each of the three cycle levels. CONCLUSIONS: These results might suggest TempBond luting agent as the material of choice for provisional cementation because it allows easier removal of the prosthesis and maintains enough retention to prevent loosening of the restoration. The clinical implication is that the effect of cyclic load on the strength of the cements is different, an important factor in selection of a cement. ImProv had the highest retentive value before and after the two cycles, and TempBond had the lowest. UltraTemp had the highest percentage of retentive value lost. TempBond had no significant loss under loading even though initially it was the weakest. Copyright (c) 2006 by The American College of Prosthodontists
PURPOSE: To evaluate the luting agents and retentive forces before and after mechanical stressing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sample size N was 12 for each group, and 12 Cera-One closed-end gold cylinders were cemented with three types of luting cements (ImProv, UltraTemp, and TempBond). The force required to remove the gold cylinders from the abutments was determined with an MTS testing machine. After cleaning and recementing the cylinders, the samples were placed in the housings of an Alabama-type three-body wear machine and load of 110 N was applied to the gold cylinders at a frequency of 80 cycles/min for 50,000 cycles. Then each cylinder was pulled from its abutment and the force at which the failure occurred was recorded. The procedure was repeated with 300,000 cycles. RESULTS: Statistical analysis arising from two-way ANOVA found that the forces required to remove the abutments were significantly different. The most retentive cement was ImProv. Before cyclic loading, on average, ImProv produced a retentive value 85% higher than that yielded by TempBond, and 25% higher than that of UltraTemp. The three cements were significantly different at each of the three cycle levels. CONCLUSIONS: These results might suggest TempBond luting agent as the material of choice for provisional cementation because it allows easier removal of the prosthesis and maintains enough retention to prevent loosening of the restoration. The clinical implication is that the effect of cyclic load on the strength of the cements is different, an important factor in selection of a cement. ImProv had the highest retentive value before and after the two cycles, and TempBond had the lowest. UltraTemp had the highest percentage of retentive value lost. TempBond had no significant loss under loading even though initially it was the weakest. Copyright (c) 2006 by The American College of Prosthodontists