Comparison via Digital Radiography of Radiopacity Levels of Composite Materials with Various Shades and Viscosities

Abstract

Aim of the present in vitro study is to evaluate the radiopacity levels of composite resins with various shades and viscosity. 10 mm×2 mm discs were prepared from 7 condensable and 4 flowable composites (n=10). An aluminum step wedge ranging from 2.0 to 10.0 mm in thickness was placed on the occlusal film. Digital radiographs were taken using a dental X-ray device and radiographic densities of each step of the aluminum wedge and the samples were recorded to the computer. Five readings were taken and means were calculated. One-Way Anova and Tamhane post hoc tests were performed. While G-eanial Posterior has the highest radiopacity value followed by Filtek Z550, Aelite Flo has the lowest radiopacity value. Posterior composites show higher radiopacity and flowable composites with higher filler loadings have superior radiopacity levels to condensable composites. Enamel and body shades of the composite brands have also statistically significant differences in radiopacity scores. Eventually, radiopacity level of a composite resin material is not affected by the size of fillers; however, the composition, shape and loading of the fillers can specify the radiodensity.

Keywords

radiopacity / composite resins / digital radiography / flowable composites / shade

References

[1] Dionysopoulos D, Tolidis K, Gerasimou P, et al. Effects of Shade and Composition on Radiopacity of Dental Composite Restorative Materials[J]. Oral Radiol., 2017, 33(3): 178

[2] Lachowski KM, Botta SB, Lascala CA, et al. Study of the Radio-opacity of Base and Liner Dental Materials Using a Digital Radiography System[J]. Dentomaxillofac. Radiol., 2013, 42(2): 1

[3] Carvalho EV, de Paula DM, Andrade Neto DM, et al. Radiopacity and Mechanical Properties of Dental Adhesives with Strontium Hydroxy-apatite Nanofillers[J]. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater., 2019, 101: 103447.

[4] Marghalani HY. Effect of Filler Characteristics on Radiopacity of Experimental Nanocomposite Series[J]. J. Adhes. Sci. Tech., 2018, 32(14): 1599

[5] Kapila R, Matsuda Y, Araki K, et al. Radiopacity Measurement of Restorative Resins Using Film and Three Digital Systems for Comparison with ISO 4049: International Standard[J]. Bull. Tokyo Dent. Coll., 2015, 56(4): 207

[6] Gu S, Rasimick BJ, Deutsch AS, et al. Radiopacity of Dental Materials Using a Digital X-ray System[J]. Dent. Mater., 2006, 22(8): 765

[7] Attar N, Tam LE, McComb D. Flow, Strength, Stiffness and Radiopacity of Flowable Resin Composites[J]. J. Can. Dent. Assoc., 2003, 69(8): 516

[8] Gül P, Çaglayan F, Akgul N, et al. Comparison of Radiopacity of Different Composite Resins[J]. J. Conserv. Dent., 2017, 20(1): 17

[9] Kwon Y, Ferracane J, Lee IB. Effect of Layering Methods, Composite Type, and Flowable Liner on the Polymerization Shrinkage Stress of Light Cured Composites[J]. Dent. Mater., 2012, 28(7): 801

[10] Theodoridis M, Dionysopoulos D, Koliniotou-Koumpia E, et al. Effect of Preheating and Shade on Surface Microhardness of Silorane-based Composites[J]. J. Investig. Clin. Dent., 2017, 8(2): 12204

[11] Nadhum NS, Jehad RH, Abdul-Kareem S, et al. Assessing The Radiopacity of Three Resin Composite Materials Using a Digital Radiography Technique[J]. J. Bagh. College. Dent., 2017, 325(5475): 1

[12] Dionysopoulos D, Tolidis K, Gerasimou P, et al. Effect of Filler Composition of Dental Composite Restorative Materials on Radiopacity in Digital Radiographic Images[J]. Polym. Compos., 2018, 39: E351.

[13] Tarçin B, Gumru B, Peker S, et al. Evaluation of Radiopacity of Bulk-fill Flowable Composites Using Digital Radiography[J]. Oper. Dent., 2016, 41(4): 424

[14] Pekkan G, Ozcan M. Radiopacity of Different Shades of Resin-based Restorative Materials Compared to Human and Bovine Teeth[J]. Gen. Dent., 2012, 60(4): e237

[15] Yıldırım T, Ayar MK, Akdag MS, et al. Radiopacity of Bulk Fill Flow-able Resin Composite Materials[J]. Niger. J. Clin. Pract., 2017, 20(2): 200

[16] Luczaj-Cepowicz E, Marczuk-Kolada G, Pawinska M, et al. Comparison of the Radiopacity of Selected Materials Used for Vital Pulp Therapy: An in Vitro Assessment[J]. Dent. Med. Probl., 2019, 56(3): 285

[17] Garoushi S, Vallittu P, Lassila L. Mechanical Properties and Radiopacity of Flowable Fiber-reinforced Composite[J]. Dent. Mater. J., 2019, 38(2): 196

[18] Kuter B, Eden E. Radiopacity of Restorative Glass-ionomer Cements[J]. J. Dent. Fac. Ataturk Uni., 2010, 20: 1.

[19] Dantas RV, Sarmento HR, Duarte RM, et al. Radiopacity of Restorative Composites by Conventional Radiograph and Digital Images with Different Resolutions[J]. Imaging Sci Dent., 2013, 43(3): 145

[20] Atala MH, Atala N, Yeğin E, et al. Comparison of Radiopacity of Current Restorative CAD/CAM Blocks with Digital Radiography[J]. J. Esthet. Restor. Dent., 2019, 31(1): 88

[21] Fonseca RB, Branco CA, Soares PV, et al. Radiodensity of Base, Liner and Luting Dental Materials[J]. Clin. Oral Investig., 2006, 10(2): 114

[22] Amirouche A, Mouzali M, Watts DC. Radiopacity Evaluation of Bis-GMA/TEGDMA/Opaque Mineral Filler Dental Composites[J]. J. Appl. Polym. Sci., 2007, 104(3): 1632

[23] Furtos G, Baldea B, Silaghi-Dumitrescu L, et al. Influence of Inorganic Filler Content on the Radiopacity of Dental Resin Cements[J]. Dent. Mater. J., 2012, 31(2): 266

[24] Moszner N, Klapdohr S. Nanotechnology for Dental Composites[J]. Int. J. Nanotechnol., 2004, 1(1–2): 130

[25] Beun S, Glorieux T, Devaux J, et al. Characterization of Nanofilled Compared to Universal and Microfilled Composites[J]. Dent. Mater., 2007, 23(1): 51