Clinical Performance and Retention of Partial Implant Restorations Cemented with Fuji Plus^® and DentoTemp™: A...

Background and Objectives: Cement-retained implant restorations are widely used because they offer favorable esthetics and a passive fit. Their long-term performance is strongly influenced by cement selection and surface conditioning. This study compared the clinical performance of a resin-modified glass ionomer cement (Fuji Plus^®) with a provisional acrylic-urethane cement (DentoTemp™) in partial implant restorations. Materials and Methods: A retrospective cohort of 40 patients with three-unit implant-supported fixed dental prostheses was followed for at least three years. Restorations were fabricated from zirconia or metal-ceramic frameworks and cemented with either Fuji Plus^® or DentoTemp™. Clinical outcomes included retention, failure events, marginal adaptation, and peri-implant tissue response. In order to illustrate the impact of cement type and abutment height, mechanical testing was also carried out on standardized in vitro models; however, these tests were not powered for formal hypothesis testing. Although OCT images were included in this study only as illustrative examples from our clinical database and were not obtained from the analyzed cohort, OCT may be a useful tool for non-invasive assessment of marginal fit. Results: Zirconia restorations showed a retention rate of 95 percent, while metal-ceramic restorations reached 85 percent. All four failures occurred in cases cemented with DentoTemp™, giving an overall retention rate of 80 percent for this group. Fuji Plus^® achieved complete retention in all cases. Re-cementation with Fuji Plus^® successfully resolved the failures. Marginal adaptation was evaluated qualitatively because radiographic analysis did not enable accurate measurement of marginal gaps. When cement remnants were found, mild peri-implant inflammation was seen. Conclusions: Within the limitations of this small retrospective, non-randomized cohort, Fuji Plus^® demonstrated a tendency toward better peri-implant tissue response and longer-term retention than DentoTemp™. These findings should be interpreted as preliminary and exploratory rather than conclusive. Fuji Plus^® may be a suitable option for definitive cementation in partial implant restorations, while DentoTemp™ may be considered in selected situations where retrievability is important.