An in vitro study to compare the influence of newer luting cements on retention of cement-retained implant-supported prosthesis

PURPOSE: The study was conducted to evaluate the retentiveness of specifically formulated implant cements and compare its retentiveness with a commonly used noneugenol zinc oxide luting cement and also to assess the influence of abutment height on the retentiveness of these cements. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A master stainless steel mold was used to mount snappy abutment-implant analog complex in acrylic resin. A total of six snappy abutments (Nobel Biocare(®)) of 4 mm and 5.5 mm height with their analogs were used. A total of 66 ceramill(®) Sintron metal copings fabricated using computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing system and divided into six groups (n = 11) according to the height (three 4 mm abutment and three 5.5 mm abutment). The cements that were compared were a Noneugenol zinc oxide provisional cement (Temp-Bond™ NE), a Noneugenol temporary resin cement (Premier(®) Implant Cement) and a resin based acrylic urethane cement (Implalute(®) Implant Cement). After cementation samples were immersed in artificial saliva for 7 days and subjected to a pull-out test using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. The load required to de-cement each coping was recorded and analyzed using one-way ANOVA, post hoc multiple comparison, and independent t-test. RESULTS: Noneugenol temporary resin cement had the highest tensile strength followed by noneugenol zinc oxide cement and the least retentive strength was observed in resin-based acrylic urethane cement. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that noneugenol temporary resin cement may be considered as a better choice for cementation of implant prosthesis, as it has shown to have better mechanical properties.