Mohamed T. Ahmed, Cherif A. Mohsen And Raessa M. Mohammed,
ABSTRACT
Objective: The Aim Of This Study Is To Compare Between Retention Of Resin Cement And Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cement Used For Cementation Of IPS E.max Crowns Over Titanium And Zirconia Implant Abutments
Materials and Methods: Twenty Implant Analogs Were Embedded In 20 Blocks Of Epoxy Resin. 10 Implant Analogs Received A Titanium Abutment, And 10 Implant Analogs Received A Zirconia Abutment. 20 E.max Press Crowns Were Constructed, 5 Crowns Cemented With Resin Cement, And 5 Cemented With Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cement For Each Type Of Abutment. Each Sample Was Subjected To A Pull-out Test Using Bluehill Lite; Instron Instruments Universal Testing Machine With A Loadcell Of 5 KN.. Loads Required To Remove The Crowns Were Recorded, And Mean Values For Each Group Determined. Data Were Statistically Analyzed Using IBM SPSS Statistics Version 20 For Windows. T-test And Two-way ANOVA Samples.
Result: The Mean Values �SD Of Loads At Failure (n -5) For Each Group Were As Follows In Newton (N): Resin-Titanium Group(A) 305.4�41.4, Resin Modified Glass Ionomer-Titanium Group(B) 164.3�21.7, Resin-Zirconia Group(C) 275.1�15.5, Resin Modified Glass Ionomer -Zirconia Group(D) 136.6�19.5 Groups A&C Were Statistically Significant (p<0.05).
Conclusion:
- There Was No Difference Between Titanium And Zirconia Abutments In Retention.
- The Resin Cement Showed Better Retention Than Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cement With Both Titanium And Zirconia Abutments. The Best Combination Was Using Resin Cement With Titanium Abutment. While, The Worst Combination Was Using Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cement With Zirconia Abutment.
