الفهرس 
IntroductionOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 90 |  |  |
| | | from | 90 | | |
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to assess and compare the retentive nature of the common abutment materials used clinically with two types of cement used for cementation of ceramic restorations.
Twenty implant analogs were embedded in 20 blocks of epoxy resin. Ten implant analogs received a titanium abutment, and 10 implant analogs received a zirconia abutment, Twenty 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.
The result showed that titanium implant abutment was slightly higher in retention force (Mean ± SD =234.8±80.6) than zirconia implant abutment (Mean ± SD =205.9±74.7) with the two types of cement (resin cement- resin modified glass ionomer cement) and the difference was statistically insignificant.
Also the result showed that resin cement (Mean ± SD =290.3±33.5) has the superiority in the retention force compared to resin modified glass ionomer cement (Mean ± SD =150.4±24.3) with the two types of implant abutment (titanium – zirconia) and the difference was statistically significant.