Imaging Science in Dentistry

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

DOI QR Code

Evaluation of the radiopacity of restorative materials with different structures and thicknesses using a digital radiography system

  • Yaylaci, Ayla (Bursa Oral and Dental Health Hospital) ;
  • Karaarslan, Emine Sirin (Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Tokat Gaziosman Pasa University) ;
  • Hatırli, Huseyin (Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Tokat Gaziosman Pasa University)
  • Received : 2020.12.19
  • Accepted : 2021.02.26
  • Published : 2021.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the radiopacities of various types of restorative materials with different thicknesses compared with enamel, dentin, and aluminum. Materials and Methods: Four bulk-fill resins, 2 hybrid ceramics, 2 micro-hybrid resin composites, 6 glass ionomer-based materials, 2 zinc phosphate cements, and an amalgam were used in the study. Twelve disk-shaped specimens were prepared from each of 17 restorative materials with thicknesses of 1 mm, 2 mm, and 4 mm (n=4). All the restorative material specimens with the same thickness, an aluminum (Al) step wedge, and enamel and dentin specimens were positioned on a phosphor storage plate and exposed using a dental X-ray unit. The mean gray values were measured on digital images and converted to equivalent Al thicknesses. Statistical analyses were performed using 2-way analysis of variance and the Bonferroni post hoc test(P<0.05). Results: Radiopacity was significantly affected by both the thickness and the material type (P<0.05). GCP Glass Fill had the lowest radiopacity value for samples of 1 mm thickness, while Vita Enamic had the lowest radiopacity value for 2-mm-thick and 4-mm-thick samples. The materials with the highest radiopacity values after the amalgam were zinc phosphate cements. Conclusion: Significant differences were observed in the radiopacities of restorative materials with different thicknesses. Radiopacity was affected by both the material type and thickness.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank Dr. Osman Demir for assistance with the statistical analysis.

References

  1. 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
  2. Imperiano MT, Khoury HJ, Pontual ML, Montes MA, Silveira MM. Comparative radiopacity of four low-viscosity composites. Braz J Oral Sci 2007; 6: 1278-82.
  3. Bouschlicher MR, Cobb DS, Boyer DB. Radiopacity of compomers, flowable and conventional resin composites for posterior restorations. Oper Dent 1999; 24: 20-5.
  4. Poorterman JH, Aartman IH, Kalsbeek H. Underestimation of the prevalence of approximal caries and inadequate restorations in a clinical epidemiological study. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1999; 27: 331-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0528.1999.tb02029.x
  5. Brouwer F, Askar H, Paris S, Schwendicke F. Detecting secondary caries lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent Res 2016; 95: 143-51. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034515611041
  6. Scotti N, Alovisi C, Comba A, Ventura G, Pasqualini D, Grignolo F, et al. Evaluation of composite adaptation to pulpal chamber floor using optical coherence tomography. J Endod 2016; 42: 160-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2015.10.006
  7. 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
  8. Toyooka H, Taira M, Wakasa K, Yamaki M, Fujita M, Wada T. Radiopacity of 12 visible-light-cured dental composite resins. J Oral Rehabil 1993; 20: 615-22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.1993.tb01648.x
  9. Attar N, Tam LE, McComb D. Flow, strength, stiffness and radiopacity of flowable resin composites. J Can Dent Assoc 2003; 69: 516-21.
  10. Yasa B, Kucukyilmaz E, Yasa E, Ertas ET. Comparative study of radiopacity of resin-based and glass ionomer-based bulk-fill restoratives using digital radiography. J Oral Sci 2015; 57: 79-85. https://doi.org/10.2334/josnusd.57.79
  11. Shah P, Sidhu SK, Chong BS, Ford TR. Radiopacity of resin-modified glass ionomer liners and bases. J Prosthet Dent 1997; 77: 239-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(97)70179-3
  12. Prevost A, Forest D, Tanguay R, DeGrandmont P. Radiopacity of glass ionomer dental materials. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1990; 70: 231-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-4220(90)90125-C
  13. Fisher J, Varenne B, Narvaez D, Vickers C. The Minamata Convention and the phase down of dental amalgam. Bull World Health Organ 2018; 96: 436-8. https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.17.203141
  14. International Organization for Standardization. ISO 4049: 2009. Dentistry - Polymer-based restorative materials. ISO: Geneva; 2009.
  15. International Organization for Standardization. ISO 9917-1: 2007. Dentistry - Water-based cements - Part 1: powder/liquid acidbase cements. ISO: Geneva; 2007.
  16. van Dijken JW, Wing KR, Ruyter IE. An evaluation of the radiopacity of composite restorative materials used in Class I and Class II cavities. Acta Odontol Scand 1989; 47: 401-7. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016358909004809
  17. Turgut MD, Attar N, Onen A. Radiopacity of direct esthetic restorative materials. Oper Dent 2003; 28: 508-14.
  18. Sur J, Endo A, Matsuda Y, Itoh K, Katoh T, Araki K, et al. A measure for quantifying the radiopacity of restorative resins. Oral Radiol 2011; 27: 22-7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11282-010-0055-4
  19. Versteeg CH, Sanderink GC, van der Stelt PF. Efficacy of digital intra-oral radiography in clinical dentistry. J Dent 1997; 25: 215-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-5712(96)00026-7
  20. 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
  21. Stanford CM, Fan PL, Schoenfeld CM, Knoeppel R, Stanford JW. Radiopacity of light-cured posterior composite resins. J Am Dent Assoc 1987; 115: 722-4. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1987.0308
  22. Hitij T, Fidler A. Radiopacity of dental restorative materials. Clin Oral Investig 2013; 17: 1167-77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-012-0797-y
  23. Akdeniz BG, Grondahl HG, Kose T. Effect of delayed scanning of storage phosphor plates. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2005; 99: 603-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2004.10.021
  24. Espelid I, Tveit AB, Erickson RL, Keck SC, Glasspoole EA. Radiopacity of restorations and detection of secondary caries. Dent Mater 1991; 7: 114-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/0109-5641(91)90056-5
  25. Pedrosa RF, Brasileiro IV, dos Anjos Pontual ML, dos Anjos Pontual A, da Silveira MM. Influence of materials radiopacity in the radiographic diagnosis of secondary caries: evaluation in film and two digital systems. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2011; 40: 344-50. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/93764866
  26. el-Mowafy OM, Benmergui C. Radiopacity of resin-based inlay luting cements. Oper Dent 1994; 19: 11-5.
  27. Rasimick BJ, Gu S, Deutsch AS, Musikant BL. Measuring the radiopacity of luting cements, dowels, and core build-up materials with a digital radiography system using a CCD sensor. J Prosthodont 2007; 16: 357-64. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.2007.00209.x
  28. Nomoto R, Mishima A, Kobayashi K, McCabe JF, Darvell BW, Watts DC, et al. Quantitative determination of radio-opacity: equivalence of digital and film X-ray systems. Dent Mater 2008; 24: 141-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2007.08.005
  29. Camps J, Pommel L, Bukiet F. Evaluation of periapical lesion healing by correction of gray values. J Endod 2004; 30: 762-6. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.DON.0000129964.50505.B2
  30. Yildirim T, Ayar MK, Akdag MS, Yesilyurt C. Radiopacity of bulk fill flowable resin composite materials. Niger J Clin Pract 2017; 20: 200-4. https://doi.org/10.4103/1119-3077.178919
  31. Oztas B, Kursun S, Dinc G, Kamburoglu K. Radiopacity evaluation of composite restorative resins and bonding agents using digital and film x-ray systems. Eur J Dent 2012; 6: 115-22. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0039-1698940
  32. 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
  33. DuBois DJ, Reichl RB, Hondrum SO. The comparative radiopacity of Fuji IX-GP, an intermediate restorative material. Mil Med 2000; 165: 278-82. https://doi.org/10.1093/milmed/165.4.278
  34. Varvara AM, Gasparik C, Culic B, Bondor CI, Varvara EB, Furtos G, et al. Radiopacity analysis of some chairside computeraided design-computer-aided manufacturing milling materials. Stud U Babes-Bol Che 2019; 64: 161-72.
  35. Atala MH, Atala N, Yegin E, Bayrak S. Comparison of radiopacity of current restorative CAD/CAM blocks with digital radiography. J Esthet Restor Dent 2019; 31: 88-92. https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12429
  36. Pekkan G, Ozcan M. Radiopacity of different resin-based and conventional luting cements compared to human and bovine teeth. Dent Mater J 2012: 31: 68-75. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2011-079
  37. Fonseca RB, Branco CA, Soares PV, Correr-Sobrinho L, HaiterNeto F, Fernandes-Neto AJ, et al. Radiodensity of base, liner and luting dental materials. Clin Oral Investig 2006; 10: 114-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-005-0030-3
  38. Stona P, Bertella SM, Rockenbach MI, Holderbaum RM, Weber JB. Radiopacities of glass ionomer cements measured with direct digital radiographic system. J Dent Child (Chic) 2012; 79: 59-62.