Effect of resin cement type and autoclaving on the retention of zirconia on Ti‐base abutments

TL;DR

This study compares different resin cements and their effect on zirconia retention on titanium abutments, finding that some cements offer better retention with fewer steps.

Contribution

The study introduces a comparison of resin cement types and bonding protocols for zirconia retention on Ti-base abutments, emphasizing workflow efficiency.

Findings

RXU/SUP showed the highest initial push-out load among nonautoclaved groups.

Autoclaving had no significant effect on cement push-out load within cement pairs.

RXU performed as well as PV5 groups with fewer preparation steps.

Abstract

The cement interface is particularly important for successful zirconia–titanium base (Ti‐base) restorations, as retention relies primarily on adhesive bonding. The aim of this in vitro study was to assess and compare the influence of a universal resin cement used with either a self‐adhesive or adhesive bonding protocol versus adhesive resin cements on the retention of zirconia to Ti‐base abutments, with and without autoclaving.

Zirconia buildups were cemented to titanium‐base abutments using RelyX Universal (RXU) as a self‐adhesive resin cement, RXU with a primer (RXU/SUP), Panavia V5 (PV5) with primer, or multilink hybrid abutment (MHA) with primer. Half of the specimens were autoclaved. Push‐out testing was performed, and data were statistically evaluated using the analysis of variance (ANOVA), Tukey honest significant difference test, and family‐wise error rate method.

Of the nonautoclaved groups, RXU/SUP showed the highest initial mean push‐out load (1576.45 ± 195.86 N), followed by MHA (1268.10 ± 160.67 N), RXU (959.66 ± 139.24 N), and PV5 (905.84 ± 298.38 N). Autoclaving did not have a significant influence on cement push‐out load when compared directly within cement pairs. The push‐out load of RXU used as self‐adhesive cement was similar to PV5 with primer. Retention of RXU/SUP and MHA groups was significantly higher than that of RXU or PV5.

In this in vitro study, RXU performed as well as PV5 groups and required the fewest preparation steps, suggesting it may be a good option for improving workflow efficiency. Results indicated a marginally positive effect of autoclaving between pairs, however, it was not significant.

Figures