Imaging Science in Dentistry

Korean Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology (대한영상치의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Radiopacity of contemporary luting cements using conventional and digital radiography

  • An, Seo-Young (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Kyungpook National University) ;
  • An, Chang-Hyeon (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Kyungpook National University) ;
  • Choi, Karp-Sik (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Kyungpook National University) ;
  • Huh, Kyung-Hoe (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Yi, Won-Jin (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Heo, Min-Suk (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Lee, Sam-Sun (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Choi, Soon-Chul (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University)
  • Received : 2018.01.24
  • Accepted : 2018.03.17
  • Published : 2018.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: This study evaluated the radiopacity of contemporary luting cements using conventional and digital radiography. Materials and Methods: Disc specimens (N=24, n=6 per group, ø$7mm{\times}1mm$) were prepared using 4 resin-based luting cements (Duolink, Multilink N, Panavia F 2.0, and U-cem). The specimens were radiographed using films, a complementary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS) sensor, and a photostimulable phosphor plate (PSP) with a 10-step aluminum step wedge (1 mm incremental steps) and a 1-mm-thick tooth cut. The settings were 70 kVp, 4 mA, and 30 cm, with an exposure time of 0.2 s for the films and 0.1 s for the CMOS sensor and PSP. The films were scanned using a scanner. The radiopacity of the luting cements and tooth was measured using a densitometer for the film and NIH ImageJ software for the images obtained from the CMOS sensor, PSP, and scanned films. The data were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests. Results: Multilink (3.44-4.33) showed the highest radiopacity, followed by U-cem (1.81-2.88), Panavia F 2.0 (1.51-2.69), and Duolink (1.48-2.59). The $R^2$ values of the optical density of the aluminum step wedge were 0.9923 for the films, 0.9989 for the PSP, 0.9986 for the scanned films, and 0.9266 for the CMOS sensor in the linear regression models. Conclusion: The radiopacities of the luting materials were greater than those of aluminum or dentin at the same thickness. PSP is recommended as a detector for radiopacity measurements because of its accuracy and convenience.

Keywords

References

  1. Tsuge T. Radiopacity of conventional, resin-modified glass ionomer, and resin-based luting materials. J Oral Sci 2009; 51: 223-30. https://doi.org/10.2334/josnusd.51.223
  2. American National Standards Institute/American Dental Association. ANSI/ADA: Specification no. 57 endodontic sealing material. Chicago: ADA; 2000.
  3. Fraga RC, Luca-Fraga LR, Pimenta LA. Physical properties of resinous cements: an in vitro study. J Oral Rehabil 2000; 27: 1064-7. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2842.2000.00657.x
  4. International Standard Organization. ISO 4049:2009. Dentistry - polymer-based restorative materials. 4th ed. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization; 2009.
  5. Attar N, Tam LE, McComb D. Mechanical and physical prop-erties of contemporary dental luting agents. J Prosthet Dent 2003; 89: 127-34. https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2003.20
  6. Soares CJ, Santana FR, Fonseca RB, Martins LR, Neto FH. In vitro analysis of the radiodensity of indirect composites and ceramic inlay systems and its influence on the detection of cement overhangs. Clin Oral Investig 2007; 11: 331-6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-007-0130-3
  7. Wilson TG Jr. The positive relationship between excess cement and peri-implant disease: a prospective clinical endoscopic study. J Periodontol 2009; 80: 1388-92. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2009.090115
  8. Dukic W, Delija B, Derossi D, Dadic I. Radiopacity of composite dental materials using a digital X-ray system. Dent Mater J 2012; 31: 47-53. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2011-119
  9. Altintas SH, Yildirim T, Kayipmaz S, Usumez A. Evaluation of the radiopacity of luting cements by digital radiography. J Prosthodont 2013; 22: 282-6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.2012.00936.x
  10. Nomoto R, Mishima A, Kobayashi K, McCabe JF, Darvell BW, Watts DC, et al. Quantitative determination of radioopacity: equivalence of digital and film X-ray systems. Dent Mater 2008; 24: 141-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2007.08.005
  11. Poorsattar Bejeh Mir A, Poorsattar Bejeh Mir M. Assessment of radiopacity of restorative composite resins with various target distances and exposure times and a modified aluminum step wedge. Imaging Sci Dent 2012; 42: 163-7. https://doi.org/10.5624/isd.2012.42.3.163
  12. Amirouche-Korichi A, Mouzali M, Watts DC. Effects of monomer ratios and highly radiopaque fillers on degree of conversion and shrinkage-strain of dental resin composites. Dent Mater 2009; 25: 1411-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2009.06.009
  13. Akerboom HB, Kreulen CM, van Amerongen WE, Mol A. Radiopacity of posterior composite resins, composite resin luting cements, and glass ionomer lining cements. J Prosthet Dent 1993; 70: 351-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(93)90221-9
  14. Kursun S, Dinc G, Oztas B, Yuksel S, Kamburoglu K. The visibility of secondary caries under bonding agents with two different imaging modalities. Dent Mater J 2012; 31: 975-9. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2012-062
  15. Watts DC, McCabe JF. Aluminium radiopacity standards for dentistry: an international survey. J Dent 1999; 27: 73-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-5712(98)00025-6
  16. Duarte MA, Demarchi AC, Yamashita JC, Kuga MC, Fraga Sde C. pH and calcium ion release of 2 root-end filling materials. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2003; 95: 345-7. https://doi.org/10.1067/moe.2003.12
  17. Camilleri J, Montesin FE, Di Silvio L, Pitt Ford TR. The chemical constitution and biocompatibility of accelerated Portland cement for endodontic use. Int Endod J 2005; 38: 834-42. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2005.01028.x
  18. Tanomaru-Filho M, da Silva GF, Duarte MA, Goncalves M, Tanomaru JM. Radiopacity evaluation of root-end filling materials by digitization of images. J Appl Oral Sci 2008; 16: 376-9. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1678-77572008000600004
  19. An SY, Lee DH, Lee KB. Radiopacity for contemporary luting cements using digital radiography under various exposure conditions. J Prosthodont 2015; 24: 642-6. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12288
  20. Lachowski KM, Botta SB, Lascala CA, Matos AB, Sobral MA. Study of the radio-opacity of base and liner dental materials using a digital radiography system. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2013; 42: 20120153. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20120153
  21. Kapila R, Matsuda Y, Araki K, Okano T, Nishikawa K, Sano T. Radiopacity measurement of restorative resins using film and three digital systems for comparison with ISO 4049: International standard. Bull Tokyo Dent Coll 2015; 56: 207-14. https://doi.org/10.2209/tdcpublication.56.207

Cited by

  1. A critical evaluation of the material properties and clinical suitability of in‐house printed and commercial tooth replicas for endodontic training vol.53, pp.10, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.13361