(i) Lower tensile strength compared to GI, but higher compared to EF-ZnO (ii) Low viscosity (iii) Lack of adhesion to prosthesis or titanium (iv) Highest elastic modulus (v) During setting, has high solubility (vi) Lowest level of creep (vii) Highest radiopacity than various luting agents (viii) Cost effective
(i) Decreased risk of decementation compared to provisional cements (ii) Easy flow for better mechanical retention (iii) High rigidity, making it appropriate for regions subjected to high occlusal forces (iv) Dimensionally stable, leading to no generation of stress on full ceramic prostheses (v) Excess cement can be easily detected easy removal of excess cement than GI cements and resin (vi) Inexpensive
(i) Inappropriate for short prostheses or abutments with elevated prosthetic abutment gap (ii) Insufficient marginal seal
GI
(i) Proper mechanical strength as well as bonding to base metal alloys (ii) Critical manipulation at setting time (iii) High material creep deformation over time (iv) High water absorption (v) Low elasticity modulus (vi) Radiopaque (vii) An increase in retention over time because of continued polymerization (viii) Cost effective
(i) Proper retention (ii) There are some brands (GC Fuji Temp LT) radiographically
(i) Insufficient moisture control at setting time leads to high microleakage (ii) Microcracks with extreme dryness at setting time (iii) No dimensional stability (inappropriate for full lithium disilicate ceramic crown) (iv) Inappropriate in regions facing high occlusal forces
