Retention of orthodontic bands with new fluoride-releasing cements

The prevalence of enamel decalcification beneath orthodontic bands has indicated the need for a fluoride-releasing, enamel-adhesive orthodontic luting cement. The purpose of this study was to compare the retentive bond strengths of orthodontic bands cemented with two new fluoride-releasing cements, a zinc polycarboxylate and a glass ionomer, with the retentive bond strength of bands cemented with the standard orthodontic cement zinc phosphate. The site of cement failure was also evaluated. One hundred eighty extracted human molar teeth were embedded in resin blocks and randomly assigned to three cement groups. Adapted bands were cemented by a clinically acceptable technique. The cemented teeth were then assigned to one of three time intervals--24 hours, 7 days, and 60 days--and thermocycled in synthetic saliva. The force required to initially fracture the cement bond was used as a measure of cement retention. By means of the Instron, a tensile load was applied to each cemented band. The maximum retentive strength (cement failure) was interpreted from the stress-strain curve at the point where linearity deviated. The failure site was judged subjectively: between cement and enamel, within the cement, or between cement and the band. Using stress at failure, an analysis of variance showed no significant differences among the retentive strengths of the three cements. The chi-square test revealed a significant difference (P less than 0.01) between failure sites of the zinc phosphate and glass ionomer cements. Significantly more bands cemented with the glass ionomer failed at the cement/band interface, leaving the cement adhered to the tooth.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

A comparison between zinc polycarboxylate and glass ionomer cement in the orthodontic band cementation

Fixed orthodontic appliances have been held responsible for demineralization and caries since the time they were first introduced. Zinc polycarboxylate and glass ionomer cements are the primary materials used in band cementing. In this study, we evaluated the re-cementing frequencies, enamel demineralization and the degree of cement remains of the bands cemented with glass ionomer and zinc polycarboxylate cements. We have concluded that given the retentive properties and enamel decalcification degree, the glass ionomer cements are to be preferred by the orthodontist.     

不同制作和粘接方法对铸造金属桩核固位性影响的研究

目的:探索铸造金属桩核制作方法、粘接方法和粘接剂种类对其固位的影响。方法:选择80颗完整的新鲜无龋坏下颌单根管双尖牙,在釉牙骨质界上2 mm处去除临床牙冠,行根管治疗,根管预备和铸造桩核制作及粘接。根据制作方法将80个样本分为两大组(直接法和间接法),每组40个。每组又根据粘接方法(使用螺旋输送器和未使用)和粘接剂(玻璃离子水门汀和磷酸锌水门汀)不同下分4小组,每组10个样本。将样本置于23 ℃室温生理盐水中存放24 h后放置于万能力学测试机上,以0.5mm/min的速度进行拉力试验直到失败,从而得出固位力大小。结果:本实验中影响固位力的最明显因素为粘接方法,使用了螺旋输送器组的固位力明显高于未使用螺旋输送器组(P<0.05);不同制作方法对固位力无明显影响(P>0.05),使用磷酸锌粘接剂组固位力高于使用玻璃离子粘接剂组。然而制作方法,粘接方法和粘接剂种类间是有密切的交互作用的(P<0.05)。结论:制作方法并不影响铸造桩核的固位力,磷酸锌粘接剂性能优于玻璃离子粘接剂,粘接方法对固位力有显著的影响,建议在粘接过程中使用螺旋输送器。     

A survey of the consent practices of specialist orthodontic practitioners in the North-West of England

Abstract

Objective: To compare the mean retentive strength, predominant site of band failure, amount of cement remaining on the tooth at deband and survival time of orthodontic micro-etched bands cemented with chlorhexidine-modified (CHXGIC) or conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC).

Design: In vitro study.

Setting: Dental Materials Laboratory.

Materials and methods: One-hundred-and-twenty intact, caries-free third molars were collected from patients attending for third molar surgery. These were stored for 3 months in distilled water and decontaminated in 0.5% chloramine. To assess retentive strength, 80 teeth were randomly selected and 40 were banded with each cement. Testing was undertaken using a Nene M3000 testing machine at a cross-head speed of 1 mm/min. Following debanding, the predominant site of failure was recorded as cement–enamel or cement–band interface. The amount of cement remaining on the tooth surface following deband was assessed and coded. Survival time for another 40 banded specimens, 20 cemented with each cement, was assessed following application of mechanical stress in a ball mill.

Main outcome measures: Retentive strength, predominant site of failure, amount of cement remaining on the tooth surface, survival time.

Results: Mean retentive strength for bands cemented with CHXGIC (0.32 MPa, SD 0.09) or GIC (0.28 MPa, SD 0.07) did not differ significantly (p=0.05). All bands failed at the enamel–cement interface. There was no significant difference in the amount of cement remaining on the tooth surface after deband for each cement type (p=0.23). The mean survival time of bands cemented with CHXGIC or GIC was 7.0 and 6.4 hours, respectively (p=0.23).

Conclusions: There was no significant difference in mean retentive strength, amount of cement remaining on the tooth after deband or mean survival time of bands cemented with CHXGIC or GIC. Bands cemented with either cement failed predominantly at the enamel–cement interface. The results suggest that CHXGIC may have comparable clinical performance to GIC for band cementation.     

A comparative study of retentive strengths of zinc phosphate, polycarboxylate and glass ionomer cements with stainless steel crowns - an in vitro study

An in vitro study was conducted to compare the retentive strengths of zinc phosphate, polycarboxylate and glass ionomer cements using Instron universal testing machine. Thirty preformed and pretrimmed stainless steel crowns were used for cementation on 30 extracted human primary molars which were divided into three groups of 10 teeth in each group. Then the teeth were stored in artificial saliva and incubated at 37°C for 24 h. A load was applied on to the crown and was gradually increased till the crown showed dislodgement, and then the readings were recorded using Instron recorder and analyzed for statistical significance. The surface area of crown was measured by graphical method. The retentive strength was expressed in terms of kg/cm 2 , which was calculated by the equation load divided by area. Retentive strengths of zinc phosphate (ranged from a minimum of 16.93 to amaximum of 28.13 kg/cm 2 with mean of 21.28 kg/cm 2 ) and glass ionomer cement (minimum of 13.69 - 28.15 kg/cm 2 with mean of 20.69 kg/cm 2 ) were greater than that of polycarboxylate cement (minimum of 13.26 - 22.69 kg/cm 2 with mean of 16.79 kg/cm 2 ). Negligible difference (0.59 kg/cm 2 ) of retentive strength was observed between zinc phosphate (21.28 kg/cm 2 ) and glass ionomer cements (20.69 kg/cm 2 ). Glass ionomer cements can be recommended for cementation of stainless steel crowns because of its advantages and the retentive strength was almost similar to that of zinc phosphate cement.     

Retention of castings with glass ionomer cement

The retentive abilities of a glass ionomer cement, a zinc phosphate cement, and a zinc silicophosphate cement were compared using 20 cast-gold inlays. The mean retentive strength of the glass ionomer cement was the greatest and that of the zinc phosphate cement the weakest. The differences between the mean retentive strengths of all three cements were statistically significant (p = .001).     

Chlorhexidine-modified glass ionomer for band cementation? An in vitro study

OBJECTIVE: To compare the mean retentive strength, predominant site of band failure, amount of cement remaining on the tooth at deband and survival time of orthodontic micro-etched bands cemented with chlorhexidine-modified (CHXGIC) or conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC). DESIGN: In vitro study. SETTING: Dental Materials Laboratory. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One-hundred-and-twenty intact, caries-free third molars were collected from patients attending for third molar surgery. These were stored for 3 months in distilled water and decontaminated in 0.5% chloramine. To assess retentive strength, 80 teeth were randomly selected and 40 were banded with each cement. Testing was undertaken using a Nene M3000 testing machine at a cross-head speed of 1 mm/min. Following debanding, the predominant site of failure was recorded as cement-enamel or cement-band interface. The amount of cement remaining on the tooth surface following deband was assessed and coded. Survival time for another 40 banded specimens, 20 cemented with each cement, was assessed following application of mechanical stress in a ball mill. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Retentive strength, predominant site of failure, amount of cement remaining on the tooth surface, survival time. RESULTS: Mean retentive strength for bands cemented with CHXGIC (0.32 MPa, SD 0.09) or GIC (0.28 MPa, SD 0.07) did not differ significantly (p=0.05). All bands failed at the enamel-cement interface. There was no significant difference in the amount of cement remaining on the tooth surface after deband for each cement type (p=0.23). The mean survival time of bands cemented with CHXGIC or GIC was 7.0 and 6.4 hours, respectively (p=0.23). CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in mean retentive strength, amount of cement remaining on the tooth after deband or mean survival time of bands cemented with CHXGIC or GIC. Bands cemented with either cement failed predominantly at the enamel-cement interface. The results suggest that CHXGIC may have comparable clinical performance to GIC for band cementation.     

Effect of surface roughness and cement space on crown retention.

The effects of varying luting agent space and internal surface roughness with different types of cores and cements were studied. One hundred eighty amalgam and 180 composite cores were cemented into standardized stainless steel retainers. Cores and retainers were divided into 12 groups according to core type, core diameter, and retainer roughness. Each group was further subdivided according to cement, A: zinc phosphate (ZOP); B: resin; and C: glass ionomer cement (GIC). Subgroups were divided into thermal-cycled and nonthermal-cycled groups. Thermal cycling was at 5 degrees to 55 degrees C, repeated 500 times. Cores were separated from their retainers with a compression rod in an Instron testing machine at a crosshead speed of 0.02 cm/minute. Results were as follows: Amalgam cores were most retentive. Resin and ZOP cements were equally retentive with amalgam cores, but GIC was less retentive. Resin cores cemented with resin cement were more than twice as retentive than those cemented with ZOP or GIC cements. Retainers with rough internal surfaces were most retentive. A reduced cement space between core and retainer was most retentive. Thermal cycling reduced retention.     

Resin-modified glass ionomer, modified composite or conventional glass ionomer for band cementation?--an in vitro evaluation

The aims of this study were to compare the mean shear-peel bond strength and predominant site of bond failure of micro-etched orthodontic bands cemented with resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC; Fuji Ortho LC or 3M Multi-Cure), a modified composite or a conventional GIC. The survival time of bands was also assessed following simulated mechanical stress in a ball mill. One hundred and twenty molar bands were cemented to extracted human third molars. Eighty bands (20 cemented with each cement) were used to assess the debonding force and 40 bands (10 cemented with each cement) were used to determine survival time. The specimens were prepared in accordance with the manufacturers' instructions for each cement. After storage in a humidor at 37 degrees C for 24 hours, the shear debonding force was assessed for each specimen using a Nene M3000 testing machine with a crosshead speed of 1 mm/minute. The predominant site of band failure was recorded visually for all specimens as either at the band/cement or cement/enamel interface. Survival time was assessed following application of mechanical stress in a ball mill. There was no significant difference in mean shear-peel bond strength between the cement groups (P = 0.816). The proportion of specimens failing at each interface differed significantly between cement groups (P < 0.001). The predominant site of bond failure for bands cemented with the RMGIC (Fuji Ortho LC) or the modified composite was at the enamel/cement interface, whereas bands cemented with 3M Multi-Cure failed predominantly at the cement/band interface. Conventional GIC specimens failed mostly at the enamel/cement interface. The mean survival time of bands cemented with either of the RMGICs or with the modified composite was significantly longer than for those cemented with the conventional GIC. The findings indicate that although there appears to be equivalence in the mean shear-peel bond strength of the band cements assessed, the fatigue properties of the conventional GIC when subjected to simulated mechanical stress seem inferior to those of the other cements for band cementation.     

Comparison of effect of desensitizing agents on the retention of crowns cemented with luting agents: an in vitro study

PURPOSE

Many dentists use desensitizing agents to prevent hypersensitivity. This study compared and evaluated the effect of two desensitizing agents on the retention of cast crowns when cemented with various luting agents.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ninety freshly extracted human molars were prepared with flat occlusal surface, 6 degree taper and approximately 4 mm axial length. The prepared specimens were divided into 3 groups and each group is further divided into 3 subgroups. Desensitizing agents used were GC Tooth Mousse and GLUMA® desensitizer. Cementing agents used were zinc phosphate, glass ionomer and resin modified glass ionomer cement. Individual crowns with loop were made from base metal alloy. Desensitizing agents were applied before cementation of crowns except for control group. Under tensional force the crowns were removed using an automated universal testing machine. Statistical analysis included one-way ANOVA followed by Turkey-Kramer post hoc test at a preset alpha of 0.05.

RESULTS

Resin modified glass ionomer cement exhibited the highest retentive strength and all dentin treatments resulted in significantly different retentive values (In Kg.): GLUMA (49.02 ± 3.32) > Control (48.61 ± 3.54) > Tooth mousse (48.34 ± 2.94). Retentive strength for glass ionomer cement were GLUMA (41.14 ± 2.42) > Tooth mousse (40.32 ± 3.89) > Control (39.09 ± 2.80). For zinc phosphate cement the retentive strength were lowest GLUMA (27.92 ± 3.20) > Control (27.69 ± 3.39) > Tooth mousse (25.27 ± 4.60).

CONCLUSION

The use of GLUMA® desensitizer has no effect on crown retention. GC Tooth Mousse does not affect the retentive ability of glass ionomer and resin modified glass ionomer cement, but it decreases the retentive ability of zinc phosphate cement.     

In vitro comparison of orthodontic band cements.

The aim of the study was to compare the mean retentive strength of microetched orthodontic bands cemented to extracted human third molars with a modified composite, a resin-modified glass ionomer cement, and a conventional glass ionomer cement. The mode of band failure and amount of cement remaining on the tooth at deband were also assessed. Finally, survival time of bands with each cement was assessed with simulated mechanical stress in a ball mill. Ninety banded specimens were used to assess retentive strength, and another 30 banded specimens were used to assess survival time. The mean retentive strength of the modified composite (0.415 MPa) was significantly less than that of either the resin-modified (1.715 MPa) or the conventional glass ionomer cement (1.454 MPa; P <.001). Specimens failed predominantly at the cement-enamel interface. The amount of cement remaining on the tooth at deband differed significantly between bands cemented with the resin-modified cement and those cemented with the conventional glass ionomer cement (P <.05). Mean survival time of bands cemented with the resin-modified glass ionomer cement (14.3 hours) was significantly longer (P <.01) than for bands cemented with the conventional glass ionomer cement (9.9 hours) but did not differ significantly from that of bands cemented with the modified composite (11.1 hours; P >.05). Orthodontic bands cemented with the modified composite appear to have a significantly lower mean retentive strength than bands cemented with resin-modified or conventional glass ionomer cement, but mean survival time did not differ significantly for bands cemented with modified composite or resin-modified glass ionomer.     

Retentive strength, disintegration, and marginal quality of luting cements.

This study evaluated the retention of complete crowns by using five different methods of cementation. Complete crowns were prepared with standardized dimensions on extracted human molars. Metal crowns were cast with a high noble gold ceramic alloy and were cemented with zinc phosphate cement, glass ionomer cement, composite resin cement, composite resin cement with a dentinal bonding agent, and adhesive resin cement. The retention was measured by subjecting the specimens to tensile load until fracture occurred. The disintegration was measured according to American Dental Association Specification No. 8, and the condition of the cements at the margins of crowns was analyzed by use of a scanning electron microscope. Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance revealed statistically significant differences between the mean retentive strengths. The retention of the zinc phosphate and the glass ionomer groups was significantly different from that of the adhesive resin group. The retention of the adhesive resin cement was 65% greater than the retention of the composite resin and the composite resin/dentinal bonding agent group, but the Mann-Whitney Wilcoxon rank sum test did not depict this difference as significant. The mean +/- SD of the disintegration for the zinc phosphate, the glass ionomer cement, and the composite resin cement was 0.025 +/- 0.013, 0.023 +/- 0.011, and 0.017 +/- 0.001, respectively. The scanning electron microscope analysis of the margins revealed that the composite resin cement was almost intact, the zinc phosphate was subjected to limited disintegration, and the glass ionomer displayed the worst marginal integrity.     

A comparative clinical trial of a glass ionomer and a zinc phosphate cement for securing orthodontic bands

This is a report of a clinical trial, comparing an experimental glass ionomer luting cement with a zinc phosphate cement for securing orthodontic bands. The comparison was made by using survival analysis techniques. The glass ionomer cement performed significantly better than the zinc phosphate cement.     

Demineralization resistance and tensile bond strength of four luting agents after acid attack

Resistance to acid demineralization provided by luting agents adjacent to enamel was evaluated for four different luting agents: composite resin, glass ionomer, polycarboxylate, and zinc phosphate cement. Cement solubility and enamel demineralization after acid attack at pH 3.0 were measured radiographically and calculated using computer-aided design. Tensile bond strength of a miniature crown seated on an accurately prepared preparation was evaluated after acid attack using an Instron instrument. Crown retention after 12 days was greater for the polycarboxylate (2,000 kg/m2) than the zinc phosphate cement (500 kg/m2). Crown retention for the glass ionomer (1,100 kg/m2) and composite resin luting agent (1,400 kg/m2) were similar statistically after 21 days of acid exposure. Cement washouts for zinc phosphate and polycarboxylate were similar, and were greater than either glass ionomer or composite resin luting agent. The amount of demineralization related to cements was, from greatest to least: zinc phosphate, polycarboxylate, composite resin, glass ionomer. Fluoride release was concluded to be initially effective in reducing enamel solubility in spite of cement solubility.     

A comparison of in vitro enamel demineralization potential of 3 orthodontic cements.

The objective of this in vitro study was to compare resistance to enamel demineralization after banding with 3 orthodontic cements. The 3 orthodontic cement groups and the nonbanded control group were evaluated for cariopreventive potential. One hundred twenty extracted human molars were selected for banding, embedded in resin blocks, and randomly assigned to the following 4 groups: zinc phosphate cement, zinc polycarboxylate cement, resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI), and nonbanded control. Orthodontic bands were placed and cemented; specimens were stored in artificial saliva at 37 degrees C for 30 days, thermocycled for 24 hours, and then debanded with a customized band-removal device attached to a universal testing machine. The cement was hand removed, and 2 coats of nail varnish were applied to the teeth, leaving a 2 x 2-mm window exposed on the buccal surface of the mesiobuccal cusp. The teeth were stored in lactic acid-gelatin solution for 4 weeks at 37 degrees C to develop simulated white spot decalcification in the window. The teeth were subjected to dye (10% methylene blue) for 24 hours and then sectioned through the window. The depth of dye penetration was determined and used as a measure of the cariopreventive effect of the banding cement. Data were analyzed with a 1-way ANOVA and a Tukey test for the multiple comparisons. Dye penetration occurred as follows: the zinc phosphate and control groups were about the same; there was less dye penetration with the zinc polycarboxylate, and the least with the resin-modified glass ionomer. The 2 fluoride-releasing cements (zinc polycarboxylate and RMGI) demonstrated less demineralization than the zinc phosphate in vitro and might provide greater protection from demineralization around a band periphery in clinical settings.     

Effect of cement selection and finishing technique on marginal opening of cast gold inlays

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The standard cement for partial-veneer cast gold restorations has been zinc phosphate. With increasing interest in using resin and resin-modified glass ionomer cements for this purpose, marginal adaptation with use of these newer cements must be assessed. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to determine if the marginal adaptation of cast gold inlays is comparable for 3 different luting agents and 3 finishing techniques. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Cast gold inlays were cemented into triangular preparations on the buccal surface of 45 extracted human molars. Three operators each used a different technique for finishing margins: finishing during cementation (FD), finishing before cementation (FB), and finishing before and during cementation (FBA). The 15 teeth for each operator were divided into 3 subgroups of 5 each to accommodate 3 cements: zinc phosphate (Fleck's zinc phosphate: ZP), resin-modified glass ionomer (RelyX Luting: RXL), and self-adhesive modified resin (RelyX Unicem: RXU). For all specimens, fine sandpaper disks followed by fine cuttle disks were used for finishing the castings. The marginal gap was measured using a Nikon measuring microscope at x50 magnification. Data were analyzed with a 1-way ANOVA for each cement (alpha=.05). RESULTS: There were significant differences among finishing techniques for each cement (P<.05). For ZP, the smallest mean marginal gaps were for FD (31 microm) and FBA (42 microm). For RXL, FBA produced the smallest gap (19 microm). For RXU, FB (23 microm) and FBA (22 microm) were optimal. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this in vitro study, the marginal gap attained with cementation of partial-veneer cast gold restorations with ZP (31 microm) can also be obtained using RXL or RXU. The techniques of FD or FBA are best used for ZP, whereas the FBA technique is best for RXL, and either FB or FBA is optimal for RXU. The FBA technique yielded a small gap; this was common to all 3 cements.     

Retentiveness of dental cements used with metallic implant components.

There is limited dental literature evaluating the retentive capabilities of luting agents when used between metal components, such as cast metal restorations cemented onto machined metal implant abutments. This study compared the retentive strengths of 5 different classes of luting agents used to cement cast noble metal alloy crowns to 8-degree machined titanium cementable implant abutments from the Straumann ITI Implant System. Sixty prefabricated 5.5-mm solid titanium implant abutments and implants were used; 30 received the standard surface preparation and the other 30 received an anodized surface preparation. Anodized implant components were used to reflect current implant marketing. Sixty castings were fabricated and randomly paired with an abutment and implant. A total of 12 castings were cemented onto the implant-abutment assemblies for each of the 5 different luting agents (zinc phosphate, resin composite, glass ionomer, resin-reinforced glass ionomer, and zinc oxide-non-eugenol). After cementation, the assemblies were stored in a humidor at room temperature prior to thermocycling for 24 hours. Each casting was pulled from its respective abutment, and the force at which bond failure occurred was recorded as retentive strength. A statistically significant difference was found between the 5 cements at P < or = .001. Of the cements used, resin composite demonstrated the highest mean retentive strength. Zinc phosphate and resin-reinforced glass-ionomer cements were the next most retentive, while glass ionomer and zinc oxide-non-eugenol cements demonstrated minimal retention. In addition, retention was not altered by the use of an anodized abutment surface.     

Time‐dependence of coronal seal of temporary materials used in endodontics

The aim of this in vitro study was to compare parametrically the coronal seal ability over different periods of times of four restorative materials used to seal the pulpal access cavity after endodontic treatment. One hundred and thirty‐five mandibular premolars were divided randomly into three time groups (1, 2 and 4 weeks), each of which was in turn divided into four subgroups. Each subgroup was restored using one of four restorative materials: Coltosol, glass ionomer cement (GIC), zinc phosphate (ZP) cement, or intermediate restorative material (IRM) cement. The root canals were prepared using the crown‐down technique, and obturated using lateral condensation. Following placement of the restorative material, the samples were incubated in distilled water at 37°C and were subjected to 50 thermocycles (0 ± 4, 56 ± 4C). After immersing in (2%) methylene blue dye for 24 h, teeth were longitudinally sectioned and examined under a stereomicroscope. The results showed that Coltosol and GIC cement were significantly superior in sealing ability to ZP and IRM cements (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference between GIC cement and Coltosol. Both Coltosol and GIC after 1 week were significantly better than 4 weeks. There was no significant difference in the seal ability at different time periods when ZP and IRM cements were used.     

Leakage of various types of luting agents

Freshly extracted molar teeth were prepared for complete cast gold crowns cemented with either zinc phosphate cement, polycarboxylate cement, glass ionomer cement, a resin luting agent, or a zinc oxide-eugenol temporary cement. The specimens were tested at 1-, 6-, and 12-month intervals with radioactive 45Ca. The specimens were sectioned, autoradiographs were made, and the marginal leakage was evaluated on a scale of 0 to 3. The results showed that zinc phosphate, polycarboxylate, and glass ionomer cements are equally suited for permanent cementation of restorations. The resin luting agent showed high initial leakage, indicating that it is not as desirable for permanent cementation purposes. The zinc oxide-eugenol cement showed increased leakage with time but is well suited for its indicated purpose, temporary cementation.     

Retrievability of implant‐retained crowns following cementation

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to assess the retrievability of cemented implant crowns using two different removal devices. The influence of five cement types and two cement application techniques was evaluated. Methods: Forty copings were cast from a CoCr alloy for 40 tapered titanium abutments (5° taper, 4.3 mm diameter, 6 mm height, Camlog, Germany). Twenty copings were modeled as single crowns, whereas 20 copings were modeled with an extension to simulate fixed partial dentures (FPDs). Before cementation, the inner surfaces of the copings were air‐abraded (50 μm Al₂O₃ particles at 2.5 bars), while the abutments were used as delivered with machined surfaces. Copings were cemented with eugenol‐free zinc oxide (Freegenol), zinc phosphate (Harvard), glass ionomer (Ketac Cem), polycarboxylate (Durelon) and so‐called self‐adhesive resin (RelyX Unicem) cement. Cement was applied in a thin film band of 1 or 3 mm to the cervical margin of the inner surface of the copings, respectively. After cementation, specimens were stored in saline solution for 24 h. The Coronaflex and a standardized custom‐made removal device were used to remove the copings from the abutments. Results: Using the same cement, no statistically significant influence with regard to the type of restoration (crown/FDP), cement application mode and device was detected (P>0.05). Therefore, data of specimens cemented with the same cement were pooled. Median attempts to remove the copings were: zinc oxide: 3, self‐adhesive resin: 3, zinc phosphate: 5, glass ionomer: 16 and polycarboxylate: 58. Four levels of significance (P<0.0001) were found: (1) zinc oxide/self‐adhesive resin; (2) zinc phosphate; (3) glass ionomer; and (4) polycarboxylate. Conclusions: Zinc phosphate and glass ionomer cement might be suitable for a so‐called ‘semipermanent’ (=retrievable) cementation, while polycarboxylate seems to provide the most durable cementation.