Purpose: to assess the retentive strengths of passive fit esthetic anterior restorations using three commercially available cements. Methods: Three resin dies were fabricated from the intaglio surface of each restoration type. Each die was prepared following the current accepted guidelines on primary anterior tooth crown preparation. The three prepared teeth were replicated to produce 30 dies for each of the three restoration types. The prepared teeth were further separated into nine groups of 10 teeth each. Thirty EZ Pedo Crowns, 30 NuSmile Primary Crowns and 30 Unitek crowns were cemented using hand pressure employing the luting cement assigned to the corresponding group. The units were allowed to cure for 7 days. The force required to dislodge the restoration was tested using the Instron Universal Testing Machine. The data was statistically analyzed using a two-way ANOVA to analyze the force required to dislodge the restorations. A two-way logistic regression was used to analyze the failure types. Results: There were no significant differences in restoration retention rates between restoration types (P = 0.4412) but there were significant differences between types of cements used. (P < .0001). The differences with regard to cement types were consistent across the restoration groups (P = 0.7682). Tukey’s HSD multiple comparison procedure indicated FujiCem was significantly more retentive than either Fuji I or Ketac Cem cements and there were no significant differences in restoration retention rates between the Fuji I and Ketac Cem cements. Conclusion: The type of restoration did not matter between cements but cement type did matter with FujiCem cement being more retentive than the other types of cements tested.