PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the retention strength of three cements commonly used in implant-supported prostheses before and after compressive cyclic loading. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The working model consisted of five solid abutments, 7 mm in height and with a 6-degree taper, screw retained to five implant analogs secured in a rectangular block of self-curing acrylic. On the abutments, 30 metal Cr-Ni alloy copings were cemented using three luting agents: glass ionomer, resin urethane-based, and compomer cement (n = 10). Two tensile tests were conducted with a universal testing machine, before and after 100,000 cycles of 100 N and 0.72 Hz compressive cyclic loading in a humid environment. RESULTS: Before applying the compressive load, the retention strength of the resin urethane-based cement was slightly higher than that of the compomer cement and 75% greater than the glass-ionomer cement. After compressive loading, the resin urethane-based cement showed the highest percentage of loss of retention (64.45%, compared with 50% for glass-ionomer and compomer cement). However, the glass-ionomer cement showed the lowest mean retentive strength with 50.35 N as opposed to 75.12 N for the compomer cement and 71.25 N for the resin urethane-based. CONCLUSIONS: Compressive cyclic loading significantly influences the retention strength of the luting agents tested. All three cements may favor the retrievability of the crowns.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the retention strength of three cements commonly used in implant-supported prostheses before and after compressive cyclic loading. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The working model consisted of five solid abutments, 7 mm in height and with a 6-degree taper, screw retained to five implant analogs secured in a rectangular block of self-curing acrylic. On the abutments, 30 metal Cr-Ni alloy copings were cemented using three luting agents: glass ionomer, resin urethane-based, and compomer cement (n = 10). Two tensile tests were conducted with a universal testing machine, before and after 100,000 cycles of 100 N and 0.72 Hz compressive cyclic loading in a humid environment. RESULTS: Before applying the compressive load, the retention strength of the resin urethane-based cement was slightly higher than that of the compomer cement and 75% greater than the glass-ionomer cement. After compressive loading, the resin urethane-based cement showed the highest percentage of loss of retention (64.45%, compared with 50% for glass-ionomer and compomer cement). However, the glass-ionomer cement showed the lowest mean retentive strength with 50.35 N as opposed to 75.12 N for the compomer cement and 71.25 N for the resin urethane-based. CONCLUSIONS: Compressive cyclic loading significantly influences the retention strength of the luting agents tested. All three cements may favor the retrievability of the crowns.