dc.contributorUniversidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
dc.date.accessioned2014-05-27T11:21:55Z
dc.date.available2014-05-27T11:21:55Z
dc.date.created2014-05-27T11:21:55Z
dc.date.issued2006-07-06
dc.identifierJournal of Applied Oral Science, v. 14, n. 2, p. 147-152, 2006.
dc.identifier1678-7757
dc.identifier1678-7765
dc.identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/11449/68997
dc.identifier10.1590/S1678-77572006000200015
dc.identifierS1678-77572006000200015
dc.identifier2-s2.0-33745641913
dc.identifier2-s2.0-33745641913.pdf
dc.identifier9653292815706560
dc.identifier0000-0001-9017-0473
dc.description.abstractThe radiopacity of esthetic restorative materials has been established as an important requirement, improving the radiographic diagnosis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the radiopacity of six restorative materials using a direct digital image system, comparing them to the dental tissues (enamel-dentin), expressed as equivalent thickness of aluminum (millimeters of aluminum). Five specimens of each material were made. Three 2-mm thick longitudinal sections were cut from an intact extracted permanent molar tooth (including enamel and dentin). An aluminum step wedge with 9 steps was used. The samples of different materials were placed on a phosphor plate together with a tooth section, aluminum step wedge and metal code letter, and were exposed using a dental x-ray unit. Five measurements of radiographic density were obtained from each image of each item assessed (restorative material, enamel, dentin, each step of the aluminum step wedge) and the mean of these values was calculated. Radiopacity values were subsequently calculated as equivalents of aluminum thickness. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) indicated significant differences in radiopacity values among the materials (P<0.0001). The radiopacity values of the restorative materials evaluated were, in decreasing order: TPH, F2000, Synergy, Prisma Flow, Degufill, Luxat. Only Luxat had significantly lower radiopacity values than dentin. One material (Degufill) had similar radiopacity values to enamel and four (TPH, F2000, Synergy and Prisma Flow) had significantly higher radiopacity values than enamel. In conclusion, to assess the adequacy of posterior composite restorations it is important that the restorative material to be used has enough radiopacity, in order to be easily distinguished from the tooth structure in the radiographic image. Knowledge on the radiopacity of different materials helps professionals to select the most suitable material, along with other properties such as biocompatibility, adhesion and esthetic.
dc.languageeng
dc.relationJournal of Applied Oral Science
dc.relation1.709
dc.relation0,645
dc.rightsAcesso aberto
dc.sourceScopus
dc.subjectDensitometry
dc.subjectDental material
dc.subjectDigital radiography
dc.titleRadiopacity of restorative materials using digital images
dc.typeArtículos de revistas


Este ítem pertenece a la siguiente institución