Cargando…

Radiopacity evaluation of calcium silicate cements

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the radiopacity of calcium silicate cements using a digital imaging method. METHODS: Four calcium silicate cements, NeoMTA 2, OrthoMTA, ProRoot MTA, and Biodentine, were used in this study. Disk-shaped samples were prepared from each material and plac...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sen, Havva Gozde, Helvacioglu-Yigit, Dilek, Yilmaz, Ayca
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10349491/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37454108
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03182-w
_version_ 1785073918765170688
author Sen, Havva Gozde
Helvacioglu-Yigit, Dilek
Yilmaz, Ayca
author_facet Sen, Havva Gozde
Helvacioglu-Yigit, Dilek
Yilmaz, Ayca
author_sort Sen, Havva Gozde
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the radiopacity of calcium silicate cements using a digital imaging method. METHODS: Four calcium silicate cements, NeoMTA 2, OrthoMTA, ProRoot MTA, and Biodentine, were used in this study. Disk-shaped samples were prepared from each material and placed on a plexiglass plate. An aluminum step-wedge was placed alongside the samples on a digital sensor and exposed to 70 kVp and 8 mA from 30 cm away for 0.32 s. The greyness values ​​of the tested materials were measured digitally with the system software and compared with those of the step-wedge to determine the equivalent aluminum thickness. RESULTS: The radiopacity values, expressed in equivalent millimetres of aluminum, of the studied materials ProRoot MTA, OrthoMTA, NeoMTA 2, and Biodentine were 4.32 ± 0.17 mm Al, 3.92 ± 0.09 mm Al, 3.83 ± 0.07 mm Al, and 2.29 ± 0.21 mm Al, respectively. Statistically significant differences were found between the mean radiographic density values of the tested materials (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: ProRoot MTA was the most radiopaque root canal filling material among the tested materials. All materials, except Biodentine, were found to be compliant with the minimum radiopacity requirements of ISO 6876 and ADA 57 standards.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10349491
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-103494912023-07-16 Radiopacity evaluation of calcium silicate cements Sen, Havva Gozde Helvacioglu-Yigit, Dilek Yilmaz, Ayca BMC Oral Health Research BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the radiopacity of calcium silicate cements using a digital imaging method. METHODS: Four calcium silicate cements, NeoMTA 2, OrthoMTA, ProRoot MTA, and Biodentine, were used in this study. Disk-shaped samples were prepared from each material and placed on a plexiglass plate. An aluminum step-wedge was placed alongside the samples on a digital sensor and exposed to 70 kVp and 8 mA from 30 cm away for 0.32 s. The greyness values ​​of the tested materials were measured digitally with the system software and compared with those of the step-wedge to determine the equivalent aluminum thickness. RESULTS: The radiopacity values, expressed in equivalent millimetres of aluminum, of the studied materials ProRoot MTA, OrthoMTA, NeoMTA 2, and Biodentine were 4.32 ± 0.17 mm Al, 3.92 ± 0.09 mm Al, 3.83 ± 0.07 mm Al, and 2.29 ± 0.21 mm Al, respectively. Statistically significant differences were found between the mean radiographic density values of the tested materials (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: ProRoot MTA was the most radiopaque root canal filling material among the tested materials. All materials, except Biodentine, were found to be compliant with the minimum radiopacity requirements of ISO 6876 and ADA 57 standards. BioMed Central 2023-07-15 /pmc/articles/PMC10349491/ /pubmed/37454108 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03182-w Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Sen, Havva Gozde
Helvacioglu-Yigit, Dilek
Yilmaz, Ayca
Radiopacity evaluation of calcium silicate cements
title Radiopacity evaluation of calcium silicate cements
title_full Radiopacity evaluation of calcium silicate cements
title_fullStr Radiopacity evaluation of calcium silicate cements
title_full_unstemmed Radiopacity evaluation of calcium silicate cements
title_short Radiopacity evaluation of calcium silicate cements
title_sort radiopacity evaluation of calcium silicate cements
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10349491/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37454108
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03182-w
work_keys_str_mv AT senhavvagozde radiopacityevaluationofcalciumsilicatecements
AT helvaciogluyigitdilek radiopacityevaluationofcalciumsilicatecements
AT yilmazayca radiopacityevaluationofcalciumsilicatecements