The Trick Of Becoming A Productive GDC-0973 Wizard

001). Thus, the null hypothesis that the type of cement would not affect the retentiveness of implant-supported zirconia copings was rejected. The results showed that the resin cements had a significant higher retention than the other studied cements (P?Aldosterone copings (Squier et?al. 2001; Mansour et?al. 2002; Maeyama et?al. 2005). It has also reported high retention strength of resin-modified glass ionomer and resin cements to zirconia ceramic restorations on prepared teeth (Ernst et�al. 2005; Palacios et�al. 2006). In another study on Camlog zirconia ceramic copings, a stable retention was achieved between these copings and titanium abutments using Panavia F when airborne particle abrasion was used as a pretreatment (Ebert et�al. 2007). Clearfil SA and Panavia F 2.0 contain adhesive phosphate monomer (MDP, 10-methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate) which showed a long-term stable bond to sandblasted zirconium oxide ceramic (Kern & Wegner 1998; Blatz et�al. 2004; Atsu et�al. 2006; Oyague et�al. 2009; Phark et�al. 2009). It has been shown that reactions may be formed between hydroxyl groups in the MDP monomer and hydroxyl groups on the zirconia ceramic surface (Yoshida et�al. GDC973 2006). Remaining of cement on the zirconia surface also corresponds to high bond strength between zirconia and resin cements, especially phosphate-modified resin cements. The retention of conventional cements depends on physical strength Natural Product Library and micromechanical retention of filler particles engaging rough surfaces of the abutment. (Oilo & Jorgensen 1978) Zinc phosphate, which develops its retentive strength by micromechanical interlocking showed less retention than resin and resin-modified glass ionomer cements (P??.001). This is probably explained by the relatively smooth and even intaglio surface of machined ceramics and abutments. The less micromechanical retention of the abutment surface can be the reason for less remaining zinc phosphate cement on the abutment. Another important issue is the tensile strength of luting agents (Montenegro et�al. 2008). Despite the lower tensile strength of zinc polycarboxylate cement than zinc phosphate (Oilo & Jorgensen 1978), there was no difference between the retention values of these cements. This can be related to bonding of zinc polycarboxylate to titanium surface by chelating to metallic ions (Mansour et�al. 2002). Residual zinc polycarboxylate cement on the abutment surfaces also supports this explanation. In the present study, the glass ionomer cement (Fuji I) presented significantly lower retention values. The results indicated that there was no significant difference between glass ionomer cement (Fuji I) and temporary cements (Temp Bond and TemSpan).