[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-460229-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-460229-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","different-luting-agents-used-in-retention-of-cadcam-all-ceramic-crowns-on-prefabricated-implant-abutments-an-in-vivo-comparative-study","Different Luting Agents Used in Retention of CAD/CAM All-Ceramic Crowns on Prefabricated Implant Abutments - An in vivo Comparative Study","","Long-term clinical success of computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) all-ceramic crowns on prefabricated implant abutments depends largely on selecting an appropriate luting agent. Material choice affects crown retention, marginal adaptation, and overall performance. An in vivo comparative study evaluated standardized lithium disilicate crowns cemented to titanium abutments, testing retention and marginal integrity across 12 months among three cement groups, including self-adhesive resin cement.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/healthcare/","Healthcare",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/different-luting-agents-used-in-retention-of-cadcam-all-ceramic-crowns-on-prefabricated-implant-abutments-an-in-vivo-comparative-study/460229/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/different-luting-agents-used-in-retention-of-cadcam-all-ceramic-crowns-on-prefabricated-implant-abutments-an-in-vivo-comparative-study/460229.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"pop out","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-08","2026-09-30",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",5,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What is the main factor affecting CAD/CAM all-ceramic crown success on implant abutments?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"The selection of an appropriate luting agent is central, because luting material choice influences retention, marginal adaptation, and overall performance.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"How were the luting agent groups compared in the study?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"Thirty patients with single-unit posterior implant-supported crowns were randomly divided into three groups (n=10 each): self-adhesive resin cement, glass ionomer cement, and resin-modified glass ionomer cement.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"Which luting agent showed the highest retention at 12 months?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"At the 12-month follow-up, the self-adhesive resin cement group showed the highest mean retention value, higher than resin-modified glass ionomer and glass ionomer groups, with no debonding reported in that group.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},460229,1790758053,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,96,100,105,109,114,119,122,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":55,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":97,"show_sort_weight":98,"slug":99},"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":101,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":102,"show_sort_weight":103,"slug":104},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":106,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":107,"slug":108},7,40,"healthcare",{"id":110,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":111,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":115,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":117,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":121},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":123,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":123,"slug":125},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":55,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":131},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":106,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":30,"language":139,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":80,"read_time":110,"preview_page_count":4},962090760408,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_085a072bc5b1113ac321206ff7593b45","Original Article  \nDifferent Luting Agents Used in Retention of CAD/CAM All‑Ceramic Crowns on Prefabricated Implant Abutments: An In vivo Comparative Study  \nG. Mahalakshmi1, Reddy Chaithanya1, Nibha Kumari Singh1, Rahul Puthenkandathil2, V. R. Rakshith3, Ghazala Khurshid4, Mohammed Javed5  \n1Department of Prosthodontics, Government Dental College and Hospital, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh, India, 2Department of Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge, AB Shetty Memorial Institute of Dental Sciences, Nitte Deemed to be University, Mangaluru, Karnataka, India, 3Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Subbaiah Institute of Dental Sciences, Shivamogga, Karnataka, India, 4Department of Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge, Lake view Hospital, Ranchi, Jharkhand, India, 5Department of Prosthodontics, Sri Aurobindo College of Dentistry, Indore, Madhya Pradesh, India  \nSubmitted: 27‑Jun‑2025  \nRevised: 10‑Jul‑2025  \nAccepted: 26‑Jul‑2025  \nPublished: 17‑Dec‑2025  \nAbstract  \nBackground: The long‑term clinical success of computer‑aided design and computer‑aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) all‑ceramic crowns on prefabricated implant abutments largely depends on the selection of an appropriate luting agent. The choice of luting material influences the crown’s retention, marginal adaptation, and overall performance. Materials and Methods: This in vivo comparative study was conducted on 30 patients requiring single‑unit posterior implant‑supported crowns. Patients were randomly divided into three groups (n = 10 each) based on the luting agent used: Group A: Self‑adhesive resin cement, Group B: Glass ionomer cement, Group C: Resin-modified glass ionomer cement Standardized CAD/CAM lithium disilicate crowns were fabricated and cemented onto titanium prefabricated abutments. All crowns were evaluated at baseline and after 3, 6, and 12 months for retention, marginal integrity, and debonding events. The primary outcome was the retention force measured using a customized pull‑out device calibrated in Newtons (N) . Clinical performance and any technical complications were also noted. Results: At the 12‑month follow‑up, Group A (self‑adhesive resin cement) showed the highest mean retention value (450 ± 25 N), followed by Group C (380 ± 30 N) and Group B (320 ± 28 N) . Debonding was observed in 1 case in Group B and 1 case in Group C, while no debonding occurred in Group A. Statistical analysis using ANOVA demonstrated a significant difference in retention among the groups (P \u003C 0.05) . Marginal adaptation was satisfactory across all groups, with no biological complications recorded. Conclusion: Within the limitations of this in vivo study, self‑adhesive resin cement demonstrated superior retention of CAD/CAM all‑ceramic crowns on prefabricated implant abutments compared to glass ionomer and resin-modified glass ionomer cements.  \nKeywords: All‑ceramic restoration, CAD/CAM crowns, crown retention, implant abutments, in vivo study, luting agents, self‑adhesive resin cement   \nIntroduction  \nT  \nof  \nhe advancement of implant prosthodontics has been significantly influenced by the integration computer‑aided design and computer‑aided  \nmanufacturing (CAD/CAM) technologies, which have enabled the precise fabrication of all‑ceramic restorations with improved esthetics, biocompatibility, and mechanical properties.[1,2] Among the critical factors contributing to the long‑term success of implant‑supported crowns is  \n\n| Access this article online |  |\n| --- | --- |\n| Quick Response Code:\u003Cbr>| Website: [https://journals.lww.com/jpbs](https://journals.lww.com/jpbs) |\n|  | DOI: 10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_1143_25 |\n\nthe retention provided by luting agents. The choice of a suitable luting material plays a pivotal role in ensuring mechanical stability, minimizing microleakage, and preventing crown dislodgement over time.[3]  \n\n| Address for correspondence: Dr. Reddy Chaithanya, Department of Prosthodontics, Government Dental College and Hospital, Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh","cbCaivDIUonZ84xm","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaivDIUonZ84xm","pdf",568822,"English","# Abstract\n## Materials and Methods\n## Results\n## Conclusion\n# Introduction","[{\"question\":\"What is the main factor affecting CAD/CAM all-ceramic crown success on implant abutments?\",\"answer\":\"The selection of an appropriate luting agent is central, because luting material choice influences retention, marginal adaptation, and overall performance.\"},{\"question\":\"How were the luting agent groups compared in the study?\",\"answer\":\"Thirty patients with single-unit posterior implant-supported crowns were randomly divided into three groups (n=10 each): self-adhesive resin cement, glass ionomer cement, and resin-modified glass ionomer cement.\"},{\"question\":\"Which luting agent showed the highest retention at 12 months?\",\"answer\":\"At the 12-month follow-up, the self-adhesive resin cement group showed the highest mean retention value, higher than resin-modified glass ionomer and glass ionomer groups, with no debonding reported in that group.\"}]","Different Luting Agents Used in Retention of CAD/CAM All-Ceramic Crowns on Prefabricated Implant Abutments - An in vivo Comparative Study | PDF"]