{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04460966542750929, 'fraction_numerical': 0.031598513011152414, 'mean_word_length': 5.026119402985074, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Retentiveness of various luting agents used with implant-supported prosthesis: an in vitro study.

Desired retrievability of cemented implant-supported fixed prosthesis makes the retentive strength of cementing agents an important consideration. The aim of the study was to evaluate the retentiveness of purposely designed implant cement and compare its retentiveness with dental cements that are commonly used with implant systems. Ten implant analogs were embedded in auto-polymerizing acrylic resin blocks and titanium abutments were attached to them. Fifty standardized copings were waxed directly on the abutment and casted. The cements used were: (1) resin-bonded zinc oxide eugenol cement, (2) purposely designed implant cement, (3) zinc phosphate cement, (4) zinc polycarboxylate cement, and (5) glass ionomer cement. After cementation, each sample was subjected to a pull-out test using universal testing machine and loads required to remove the crowns were recorded. The mean values and standard deviations of cement failure loads were analyzed using ANOVA and Bonferroni test. The mean values (± SD) of loads at failure (n = 10) for various cements were as follows (N): resin-bonded zinc oxide eugenol cement 394.62 (± 9.76), Premier implant cement 333.86 (± 18.91), zinc phosphate cement 629.30 (± 20.65), zinc polycarboxylate cement 810.08 (± 11.52), and glass ionomer cement 750.17 (± 13.78). The results do not suggest that one cement type is better than another, but they do provide a ranking order of the cements regarding their ability to retain the prosthesis and facilitate easy retrievability.