Aim: The trial's goal was to assess the retentiveness of specially formulated implant cement besides comparing it to dental cements that are widely utilized by means of implant systems. Materials and Procedures: Twenty implant analogs were implanted in auto-polymerizing acrylic resin blocks and bonded to titanium abutments. Fifty uniform copings were waxed and cast unswervingly onto the abutment. (1) Resin-bonded zinc oxide eugenol cement, (2) purposefully designed implant cement, (3) zinc phosphate cement, (4) zinc polycarboxylate cement, and (5) glass ionomer cement were the cements used. Following cementation, each sample was pulled out by utilizing a widespread testing machine, and the stresses necessary to confiscate the crowns were recorded. The ANOVA and Bonferroni tests were used to examine the mean values and standard deviations of cement failure loads. Results: Zinc polycarboxylate cement had the peak mean cement failure load, followed by glass ionomer cement. Zinc phosphate cement had the next highest mean cement failure load, followed by resin-bonded zinc oxide eugenol cement. The mean cement failure load for Premier implant cement was the lowest. The difference in mean cement failure loads across the groups was statistically significant (P < 0.001). Conclusion: The findings do not imply that one type of cement is superior to another, but they do present a ranking directive of cements based on their capacity to maintain the prosthesis and facilitate retrievability.