We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants



Forgotten password?


Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 17 (2002), No. 4     15. Aug. 2002
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 17 (2002), No. 4  (15.08.2002)

Page 536-542

Comparison of Uniaxial Resistance Forces of Cements Used with Implant-Supported Crowns
Akça, Kıvanç / Iplikçioglu, Haldun / Çehreli, Murat C.
Purpose: Provisional cements are commonly used to facilitate retrievability of cement-retained fixed implant restorations. While the functional life spans of these cements are unpredictable, the relative retentiveness of various permanent and provisional cements between dental alloys and titanium abutments is not well documented. The aim of this study was to compare the uniaxial resistance forces of permanent and provisional luting cements used for implant-supported crowns. Materials and Methods: Seven samples on 4 different abutments (a total of 28 crowns) were cast using a gold-platinumpalladium alloy. The crowns were cemented with 3 different provisional, polycarboxylate, and glassionomer cements and 1 zinc phosphate cement. After storage of samples in artificial saliva for 24 hours, tensile tests were performed. Results: While the highest uniaxial resistance forces were recorded for polycarboxylate cements, provisional cements exhibited significantly lower failure strengths (P < .05). The uniaxial resistance force of cements on different abutments exhibited notably different trends; however, more force was required to remove crowns cemented to long abutments (P < .05). Discussion: Glass-ionomer and zinc phosphate cements may be used to increase the maintenance of implant-supported crowns. Temporary cementation of such restorations may necessitate frequent recementation, particularly for restorations on short abutments. Conclusions: Temporary cementation may be more suitable for restorations supported by multiple implants.