Radiopacity of dental materials using a digital X-ray system

Küçükyılmaz

Journal of Oral Science

et al. 2015

This study investigated the radiopacity values of glass ionomer-and resin-based bulk-fill restoratives of different thicknesses using digital radiography. Two glass ionomer-based and three resin-based bulk-fill restoratives, and a conventional composite were studied. Five disc-shaped specimens were prepared from each of these materials at three different thicknesses; specimens of enamel and dentin with the same thicknesses were also prepared. Materials were placed over a complementary metal oxide-semiconductor sensor together with the tooth specimen and an aluminum step-wedge, and then exposed using a dental X-ray unit. The images were analyzed using a software program to measure the mean gray values (MGVs), which were converted to equivalent aluminum thicknesses. Two-way ANOVA was used to investigate the significance of differences among the groups. The GCP Glass Fill specimens showed the lowest radiopacity values, and the Quixfil specimens had the highest values. All materials had higher radiopacity values than enamel and dentin, except for GCP Glass Fill, which had a radiopacity similar to that of enamel. The resin-based bulk-fill restoratives had significantly higher radiopacity values than glass ionomer-based restoratives. All of the tested materials showed radiopacity values higher than that of dentin, as recommended by the ISO. (J Oral Sci 57, 79-85, 2015)

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 78%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative study of radiopacity of resin-based and glass ionomer-based bulk-fill restoratives using digital radiography

Küçükyılmaz

Journal of Oral Science

et al. 2015

“…There are those studies 1,[4][5][6][10][11][12] that conducted this evaluation using objective analysis, comparing the image of materials to a reference image, and other studies 2,3,7,13-15 that made this evaluation by means of subjective analysis, comparing the observers' performance to a specific diagnosis. In this in vitro study, both analyses, objective and subjective, were used.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of Radiopacity of Dental Composites on the Diagnosis of Secondary Caries: The Correlation Between Objective and Subjective Analyses

Cruz

Esteves

Poiate

et al. 2014

Operative Dentistry

SUMMARY This study aimed to objectively evaluate the radiopacity of different dental composites and their subjective influence on diagnosing secondary caries–like lesions and how these results correlate. For objective analysis, three resin specimens (1 mm thick, with a 4-mm internal diameter) were made with four composites: 1) Charisma; 2) Filtek Z250; 3) Prisma AP.H; and 4) Glacier. Three human teeth were selected and then mesio-distally sectioned (1 mm thick) to make the dental specimens. An aluminum (Al) wedge (12 steps, 1 mm thick, 99.8% purity) was used as an internal standard to calculate the radiopacity. For subjective analysis, 20 human teeth were selected and then prepared with a mesio-occluso-distal (MOD) inlay cavity, with half the teeth receiving a round cavity to simulate the carious lesion. The MOD was restored using the composites at four different times. Standardized radiographs were acquired and then digitized (300 dpi and eight-bit TIFF) for both analyses. A histogram objectively measured the pixel intensity values of the images, which were converted into millimeters of Al using linear regressions. Eight observers subjectively evaluated the images using a five-point rating scale to diagnose the caries. The data were statistically analyzed using the Student t-test, the Kappa test, diagnostic testing, and the Pearson correlation coefficient (α=0.05). All materials showed radiopacity values compatible with dental tissues (p>0.05); Glacier was similar to dentin and Prisma AP.H was similar to enamel, while the remaining materials showed a middle radiopacity. Prisma AP.H and Glacier differed (p<0.05) in relation to their accuracy to caries diagnosis, with Glacier having greater accuracy. There was a correlation between objective and subjective analyses with negative linear dependence. An increase in the material's radiopacity could have a subjectively negative influence on the diagnosis of secondary caries; thus, an ideal radiopacity for a dental composite is closer to the dentin image and produces similar attenuation to X-rays than does dentin.

“…With the indirect digital method, the conventional radiographic films are scanned and the digital images are then obtained. Using a software program, the radiopacity of a material can be measured on a scale of 0 to 255 (34). In the digital method, there is no need to use processing chemicals (35).…”

Section: Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

Radiopacity of Dental Materials: An Overview

Pekkan¹

2016

Avicenna J Dent Res

Context: This study aimed to provide an overview of the literature on the radiopacity of dental materials in order to emphasize its importance. Evidence Acquisition: English-language literature was investigated using manual and electronic searches for the terms "radiopacity," "dental material," "cement," "composite," "ceramic," "endodontic root canal sealer," "bone graft," and "acrylic resin" in the databases of Medline, google scholar, and Scopus up to April 2016. Seventy-nine selected publications, including review articles, original articles, and books, were evaluated. Results: The radiopacity of different dental materials may be lower or higher than that of the replaced tissue depending on the restorative material used. The research revealed that highly-radiopaque materials should not be used in dental restorations, except as bone graft and endodontic root canal filling materials. For most of the dental restorative materials, moderate radiopacity within the range of the replaced dental tissue is recommended. However, the lower radiopacity of polymer-based restorative or prosthetic dental materials is still a significant clinical problem. Conclusions:The author recommends using highly-radiopaque materials whenever possible for treatment of bone defects and root canals. For dental materials that replace clinical crowns, the radiopacity should be within the range of that of the replaced tooth structure (dentin or enamel). The radiopacity of dental cements should be much higher than that of the enamel in order to facilitate detection of the thin cement remnants.