dc.contributor.author | Aladağ, Akın | |
dc.contributor.author | Şahan, Makbule Heval | |
dc.contributor.author | Ozdemir Akkus, Niler | |
dc.contributor.author | Tüzünsoy Aktaş, Rahime | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2020-11-20T14:39:21Z | |
dc.date.available | 2020-11-20T14:39:21Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2020 | |
dc.identifier.issn | 1119-3077 | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://doi.org/10.4103/njcp.njcp_590_19 | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12809/382 | |
dc.description | WOS: 000565286100008 | en_US |
dc.description | PubMed ID: 32788484 | en_US |
dc.description.abstract | Aims: The aim of this study was to compare the retention of different luting agents used with implant-supported restorations. Materials and Methods: A total of 90 custom metal frameworks and copings were prepared and divided into six different luting agent groups (n = 15/group): polycarboxylate cement (PC), resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (RMGIC), two self-adhesive resin cements (SARC), copper-ion zinc-phosphate cement (CZPC), and non-eugenol temporary resin cement (TRC). After sandblasting with 50 mu m Al2O3, the copings were cemented on frameworks and stored in artificial saliva for 48 h at 37 degrees C and thermocycled between 5-55 degrees C for 37,500 cycles. Samples were subjected to tensile testing by a universal testing machine, and data were statistically analyzed. Results: The differences between the retention values of types of cement were significant (P < 0.05). The maximum retention value was calculated for CZPC (755,12 +/- 55 MPa) while the lowest value was for TRC (311,7 +/- 61 Mpa). Conclusion: Neither of the tested cement had superiority over another to ensuring retention. The types of cement presented were meant to be a discretionary guide for the clinician in deciding the amount of the desired retention between castings and abutments. | en_US |
dc.item-language.iso | eng | en_US |
dc.publisher | Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications | en_US |
dc.item-rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess | en_US |
dc.subject | Cemented Abutments | en_US |
dc.subject | Fixed Prosthesis | en_US |
dc.subject | Restoration Removal | en_US |
dc.title | Retention of luting agents used for implant-supported restorations: A comparative In-Vitro study | en_US |
dc.item-type | article | en_US |
dc.contributor.department | MÜ, Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi, Klinik Bilimler Bölümü, Protetik Diş Tedavisi | en_US |
dc.contributor.institutionauthor | Aladağ, Akın | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.4103/njcp.njcp_590_19 | |
dc.identifier.volume | 23 | en_US |
dc.identifier.issue | 8 | en_US |
dc.identifier.startpage | 1073 | en_US |
dc.identifier.endpage | 1078 | en_US |
dc.relation.journal | Nigerian Journal of Clinical Practice | en_US |
dc.relation.publicationcategory | Makale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanı | en_US |