Cargando…
Comparison of radiopacity of different composite resins
BACKGROUND: The radiopacity of composite resins has been considered as an important requirement, improving the radiographic diagnosis. AIM: The present study aimed to compare the radiopacity of eight different composite materials using an aluminum step wedge. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight different c...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5514803/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28761247 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0972-0707.209071 |
_version_ | 1783250886205636608 |
---|---|
author | Gul, Pinar Çaglayan, Fatma Akgul, Nilgün Akgul, Hayati Murat |
author_facet | Gul, Pinar Çaglayan, Fatma Akgul, Nilgün Akgul, Hayati Murat |
author_sort | Gul, Pinar |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The radiopacity of composite resins has been considered as an important requirement, improving the radiographic diagnosis. AIM: The present study aimed to compare the radiopacity of eight different composite materials using an aluminum step wedge. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight different composite resins were used in this study. The samples were prepared using a stainless steel mold (2 × 8), and a 2-mm-thickness horizontal section was obtained from the freshly extracted molar tooth. Three different radiographs were taken by establishing standard conditions. Mean gray values were obtained by taking three measurements from each step of both the tooth and the aluminum step wedge, and the aluminum thickness equivalents were calculated. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way variance analysis and Tukey's test (P < 0.05). RESULTS: All aluminum thickness equivalents were found to be higher than those of the enamel and dentin, except Clearfil Majesty Esthetic (2.23 mm ± 0.52 mm) and Filtek Silorane (3.67 mm ± 0.15 mm) (P < 0.05). The Clearfil Majesty Posterior (8.50 mm ± 0.10 mm) and Arabesk Top (8.17 mm ± 0.06 mm) were found to be the most radiopaque composites. CONCLUSION: All composite resin materials tested in this study were confirmed to the International Standards Organization 4049 standards. However, since radiopacity is not the only criterion for clinical use, it is a better approach to take all other properties of the materials into consideration. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5514803 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-55148032017-07-31 Comparison of radiopacity of different composite resins Gul, Pinar Çaglayan, Fatma Akgul, Nilgün Akgul, Hayati Murat J Conserv Dent Original Research Article BACKGROUND: The radiopacity of composite resins has been considered as an important requirement, improving the radiographic diagnosis. AIM: The present study aimed to compare the radiopacity of eight different composite materials using an aluminum step wedge. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight different composite resins were used in this study. The samples were prepared using a stainless steel mold (2 × 8), and a 2-mm-thickness horizontal section was obtained from the freshly extracted molar tooth. Three different radiographs were taken by establishing standard conditions. Mean gray values were obtained by taking three measurements from each step of both the tooth and the aluminum step wedge, and the aluminum thickness equivalents were calculated. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way variance analysis and Tukey's test (P < 0.05). RESULTS: All aluminum thickness equivalents were found to be higher than those of the enamel and dentin, except Clearfil Majesty Esthetic (2.23 mm ± 0.52 mm) and Filtek Silorane (3.67 mm ± 0.15 mm) (P < 0.05). The Clearfil Majesty Posterior (8.50 mm ± 0.10 mm) and Arabesk Top (8.17 mm ± 0.06 mm) were found to be the most radiopaque composites. CONCLUSION: All composite resin materials tested in this study were confirmed to the International Standards Organization 4049 standards. However, since radiopacity is not the only criterion for clinical use, it is a better approach to take all other properties of the materials into consideration. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2017 /pmc/articles/PMC5514803/ /pubmed/28761247 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0972-0707.209071 Text en Copyright: © 2017 Journal of Conservative Dentistry http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms. |
spellingShingle | Original Research Article Gul, Pinar Çaglayan, Fatma Akgul, Nilgün Akgul, Hayati Murat Comparison of radiopacity of different composite resins |
title | Comparison of radiopacity of different composite resins |
title_full | Comparison of radiopacity of different composite resins |
title_fullStr | Comparison of radiopacity of different composite resins |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of radiopacity of different composite resins |
title_short | Comparison of radiopacity of different composite resins |
title_sort | comparison of radiopacity of different composite resins |
topic | Original Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5514803/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28761247 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0972-0707.209071 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT gulpinar comparisonofradiopacityofdifferentcompositeresins AT caglayanfatma comparisonofradiopacityofdifferentcompositeresins AT akgulnilgun comparisonofradiopacityofdifferentcompositeresins AT akgulhayatimurat comparisonofradiopacityofdifferentcompositeresins |