SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Journal of Health Sciences and Medicine / 2026 / Volume: 9 Issue: 2

The pull-out retention strength of different cements used in implant-supported fixed restorations

İlknur Usta Kutlu(TOKAT GAZİOSMANPAŞA ÜNİVERSİTESİ, DİŞ HEKİMLİĞİ FAKÜLTESİ, DİŞ HEKİMLİĞİ PR.)0000-0001-7532-7954
Tuğba Ak Açıkgöz(TOKAT GAZİOSMANPAŞA ÜNİVERSİTESİ, DİŞ HEKİMLİĞİ FAKÜLTESİ, DİŞ HEKİMLİĞİ PR.)0009-0003-3869-9814
Işıl Sarıkaya(TOKAT GAZİOSMANPAŞA ÜNİVERSİTESİ, DİŞ HEKİMLİĞİ FAKÜLTESİ, DİŞ HEKİMLİĞİ PR.)0000-0002-2172-4724
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-03-12
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion: Self-adhesive resin cement demonstrated superior pull-out retention strength, suggesting a higher retentive potential compared to the other cements tested under these specific experimental conditions.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aims: This study aims to compare the pull-out retention strengths of various luting cements used in implant-supported fixed prostheses.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methods: A total of 50 newly fabricated cobalt-chromium (CoCr) crowns and 50 standard abutments were used in the study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: Self-adhesive resin cement demonstrated superior pull-out retention strength, suggesting a higher retentive potential compared to the other cements tested under these specific experimental conditions.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Implant-supported fixed prostheses · cement · pull-out

Abstract

Aims: This study aims to compare the pull-out retention strengths of various luting cements used in implant-supported fixed prostheses. Methods: A total of 50 newly fabricated cobalt-chromium (CoCr) crowns and 50 standard abutments were used in the study. The specimens were divided into five groups based on the cement type, with ten unique specimens per group (n=10, N=50). Standard abutments with 2 mm gingival height (Nucleoss, Şanlılar Ltd. Şti. İzmir, Turkiye) and analogs with 3.8 mm diameter and 12 mm height were torqued to 30 N. Screw access holes were sealed using Teflon and light-cured composite (G-Aenial Achord, GC, Tokyo, Japan). Analogs were embedded in auto-polymerizing acrylic (Integra; BG Dental, Mersin, Turkiye). Abutments were scanned (Medit T510, Medit Corp., Seoul, South Korea), and CoCr crowns fitting to the abutments, with rings on the occlusal surface for pull-out tests and a 50 µm cement space, were designed using CAD software (Exocad GmbH). Crowns were fabricated additively via laser melting (Mysint 100 Dual Laser, Sisma S.p.A., Piovene Rocchette, Italy). Five different types of cements were used for cementation: zinc polycarboxylate (Adhesor Carbofine, PENTRON SpofaDental a.s., Jičín, Czech Republic), glass ionomer (Kavitan CEM, PENTRON SpofaDental a.s., Jičín, Czech Republic), zinc phosphate (Adhesor, PENTRON SpofaDental a.s., Jičín, Czech Republic), self-adhesive resin (G-CEM ONE, GC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan), and resin-reinforced glass ionomer (Meron Plus QM, VOCO GmbH, Cuxhaven, Germany). Specimens were stored in water at 37°C for 24 hours. Pull-out tests were conducted using a universal testing machine (SHIMADZU AGS-X, Shimadzu Corp., Kyoto, Japan). Data analysis was conducted using one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey's HSD post hoc test (SPSS). Results: Self-adhesive resin cement exhibited significantly higher pull-out retention strength than all other groups (p 0.001). Conclusion: Self-adhesive resin cement demonstrated superior pull-out retention strength, suggesting a higher retentive potential compared to the other cements tested under these specific experimental conditions.

🔖

Cite This Article

Kutlu, İ. U., Açıkgöz, T. A., Sarıkaya, I. (2026). The pull-out retention strength of different cements used in implant-supported fixed restorations. Journal of Health Sciences and Medicine, Volume: 9 Issue: 2. https://doi.org/10.32322/jhsm.1852327

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (46)

  1. Bishti S, Siouri J, Wolfart S, Tuna T. Retention forces of implant-supported single crowns and fixed dental prostheses after cementation: an in-vitro study. Oral. 2022;2(1):29-40. doi:10.3390/oral2010005
  2. Kurtoğlu C, Asar NV. Tooth-implant-supported fixed prostheses. Curr Res Dent Sci. 2023;33(1):50-57. doi:10.17567/ataunidfd.984621
  3. Tokar E. Implant supported prosthetic restorations in partial edentulism. Turkiye Klinikleri J Prosthodont-Special Topics. 2021;7(2):6-13.
  4. Ahsan A, Khushboo B, Kumar A, et al. An in vitro trial to estimate the retention ability of luting agents utilized with dental implant-supported prosthesis. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2022;14(Suppl 1):S541-s544. doi:10. 4103/jpbs.jpbs_150_22
  5. Sarfaraz H, Hassan A, Shenoy KK, Shetty M. An in vitro study to compare the influence of newer luting cements on retention of cement-retained implant-supported prosthesis. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2019; 19(2):166-172. doi:10.4103/jips.jips_235_18
  6. Mehta S, Kesari A, Tomar M, et al. An evaluation of the effectiveness of various luting cements on the retention of implant-supported metal crowns. Cureus. 2023;15(7):e41691. doi:10.7759/cureus.41691
  7. Kapoor R, Singh K, Kaur S, Arora A. Retention of implant supported metal crowns cemented with different luting agents: a comparative invitro study. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016;10(4):Zc61-64. doi:10.7860/JCDR/ 2016/15912.7635
  8. Uludamar A, Kulak Y. Cement selection of cemented implant supported restorations. Cumhuriyet Dent J. 2012;15(2):166-174. doi:10.7126/cdj. 2012.777
  9. Sathyanarayan S, Balavadivel T, Guru RC, Sande AR, Rajendran V, Sengottaiyan AK. Retention of various luting agents used with implant-supported crowns. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2021;13(Suppl 2):S1206-s1209. doi:10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_385_21
  10. Heboyan A, Vardanyan A, Karobari MI, et al. Dental luting cements: an updated comprehensive review. Molecules. 2023;28(4):1619. doi:10.3390/molecules28041619
  11. Leung GK, Wong AW, Chu CH, Yu OY. Update on dental luting materials. Dent J (Basel). 2022;10(11):208. doi:10.3390/dj10110208
  12. Wingo K. A review of dental cements. J Vet Dent. 2018;35(1):18-27. doi: 10.1177/0898756418755
  13. Srimaneepong V, Heboyan A, Zafar MS, et al. Fixed prosthetic restorations and periodontal health: a narrative review. J Funct Biomater. 2022;13(1):15. doi:10.3390/jfb13010015
  14. Alshabib A, AlDosary K, Algamaiah H. A comprehensive review of resin luting agents: bonding mechanisms and polymerisation reactions. Saudi Dent J. 2024;36(2):234-239. doi:10.1016/j.sdentj.2023.11.010
  15. Strazzi-Sahyon HB, Bergamo ETP, Gierthmuehlen PC, et al. In vitro assessment of the effect of luting agents, abutment height, and fatigue on the retention of zirconia crowns luted to titanium base implant abutments. J Prosthet Dent. 2023;130(5):739.e731-739.e738. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.07.032
  16. Aladag A, Sahan MH, Akkus NO, Aktas R. Retention of luting agents used for implant-supported restorations: a comparative in-vitro study. Niger J Clin Pract. 2020;23(8):1073-1078. doi:10.4103/njcp.njcp_590_19
  17. Nejatidanesh F, Savabi O, Ebrahimi M, Savabi G. Retentiveness of implant-supported metal copings using different luting agents. Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2012;9(1):13-18. doi:10.4103/1735-3327.92921
  18. Naumova EA, Roth F, Geis B, Baulig C, Arnold WH, Piwowarczyk A. Influence of luting materials on the retention of cemented implant-supported crowns: an in vitro study. Materials (Basel). 2018;11(10):1853. doi:10.3390/ma11101853
  19. Prause E, Hey J, Beuer F, Rosentritt M. Factors influencing retention of resin-based luting systems on implants: a systematic review. Dentistry Review. 2022;2(3):100056. doi:10.1016/j.dentre.2022.100056
  20. Shadid RM. Retention of CAD-CAM implant-supported ceramic restorations luted to titanium bases: a systematic review of in-vitro studies. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2025;17:305-333. doi:10.2147/CCIDE.S540951
  21. Rödiger M, Kloß J, Gersdorff N, Bürgers R, Rinke S. Removal forces of adhesively and self-adhesively luted implant-supported zirconia copings depend on abutment geometry. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2018;87: 119-123. doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2018.07.028
  22. Alvarez-Arenal A, Gonzalez-Gonzalez I, deLlanos-Lanchares H, Brizuela-Velasco A, Ellacuria-Echebarria J. The selection criteria of temporary or permanent luting agents in implant-supported prostheses: in vitro study. J Adv Prosthodont. 2016;8(2):144-149. doi:10.4047/jap. 2016.8.2.144
  23. Begum Z, Sonika R, Pratik C. Effect of different cementation techniques on retained excess cement and uniaxial retention of the implant-supported prosthesis: an in vitro study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014;29(6):1333-1337. doi:10.11607/jomi.3724
  24. Zaugg LK, Zehnder I, Rohr N, Fischer J, Zitzmann NU. The effects of crown venting or pre-cementing of CAD/CAM-constructed all-ceramic crowns luted on YTZ implants on marginal cement excess. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018;29(1):82-90. doi:10.1111/clr.13071
  25. Bankoğlu Güngör M, Karakoca Nemli S. Fracture resistance of CAD-CAM monolithic ceramic and veneered zirconia molar crowns after aging in a mastication simulator. J Prosthet Dent. 2018;119(3):473-480. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.05.003
  26. Wang W, Chang J, Wang HM, Gu XH. Effects of precementation on minimizing residual cement around the marginal area of dental implants. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;123(4):622-629. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent. 2019.04.010
  27. Aguinis H, Vassar M, Wayant C. On reporting and interpreting statistical significance and p values in medical research. BMJ Evid Based Med. 2021;26(2):39-42. doi:10.1136/bmjebm-2019-111264
  28. Mundt T, Heinemann F, Golecki G, Schwahn C, Biffar R. Retention force of secondary crowns to copings after temporary cementation: the effect of crown material and luting agent. Biomed Tech (Berl). 2010;55(6):335-340. doi:10.1515/bmt.2010.046
  29. Wadhwani CPK. Cementation in dental implantology: an evidence-based guide. Cham: Springer; 2015.
  30. Yuzbasioglu E. A modified technique for extraoral cementation of implant retained restorations for preventing excess cement around the margins. J Adv Prosthodont. 2014;6(2):146-149. doi:10.4047/jap.2014.6.2.146
  31. Azer A, Shahin H. Fit of laser sintered metal restorations: a systematic review. Egypt Dent J. 2019;65:2967-2980. doi:10.21608/edj.2019.72692
  32. Ahmed H, Fathy A, Essam E. Effect of different types of luting cements on retention and marginal adaptation of implant-supported crowns (an in vitro study). Al-Azhar Dent J Girls. 2017;4:13-21. doi:10.21608/adjg. 2017.5191
  33. Strassler HE, Sensi LG. Contemporary dental cements to meet the challenges of today’s restorative dentistry. Dent Clin North Am. 2007; 51(3):793-817. doi:10.1016/j.cden.2007.04.004
  34. Mansour A, Ercoli C, Graser G, Tallents R, Moss M. Comparative evaluation of casting retention using the ITI solid abutment with six cements. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2002;13(4):343-348. doi:10.1034/j.1600- 0501.2002.130401.x
  35. Pan YH, Lin CK. The effect of luting agents on the retention of dental implant-supported crowns. Chang Gung Med J. 2005;28(6):403-410.
  36. Montenegro AC, Machado AN, Depes Gouvêa CV. Tensile strength of cementing agents on the CeraOne system of dental prosthesis on implants. Implant Dent. 2008;17(4):451-460. doi:10.1097/ID.0b013e 31818c4947
  37. Berg JH, Croll TP. Glass ionomer restorative cement systems: an update. Pediatr Dent. 2015;37(2):116-124.
  38. Mehl C, Ali S, El Bahra S, Harder S, Vollrath O, Kern M. Is there a correlation between tensile strength and retrievability of cemented implant-retained crowns using artificial aging? Int J Prosthodont. 2016; 29(1):83-90. doi:10.11607.ijp.4317
  39. Park E, Kang S. Current aspects and prospects of glass ionomer cements for clinical dentistry. Yeungnam Univ J Med. 2020;37(3):169-178. doi:10. 12701/yujm.2020.00374
  40. Sakaguchi RL, Powers JM. Craig's restorative dental materials. 13th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier. 2012.
  41. AlJulayfi IS. Effectiveness of different luting agents on retention of implant-supported crowns. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2025;17(Suppl 2): S1168-s1172. doi:10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_1545_24
  42. Horiuchi S, Asaoka K, Tanaka E. Development of a novel cement by conversion of hopeite in set zinc phosphate cement into biocompatible apatite. Biomed Mater Eng. 2009;19(2-3):121-131. doi:10.3233/BME-2009-057
  43. Segarra MS, Segarra A. The evolution of cements for indirect restorations from luting to bonding. In: Sunico-Segarra M, Segarra A, eds. A practical clinical guide to resin cements. Berlin: Springer; 2014:3-7. doi:10.1007/978-3-662-43844-8_1
  44. Hill EE, Lott J. A clinically focused discussion of luting materials. Aust Dent J. 2011;56(Suppl 1):67-76. doi:10.1111/j.1834-7819.2010.01297.x
  45. Segarra M, Segarra A. A practical clinical guide to resin cements. 1st ed. Springer International Publishing; 2015.
  46. Sheets JL, Wilcox C, Wilwerding T. Cement selection for cement-retained crown technique with dental implants. J Prosthodont. 2008; 17(2):92-96. doi:10.3390/oral2010005