Comparing Radiopacity of Nanohybrid Composite and Giomers: An In Vitro Study
An in vitro study comparing the radiopacities of nanohybrid composite and giomers using aluminum stepwedge as standard.
Abstract
Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the radiopacity of three different composite resins; one nanohybrid and two giomers.
Material and Methods:
For evaluation of radiopacity of composites, ten specimens of each material [(3 groups) (total 30) (n=10] with thicknesses of 2 mm were prepared and radiographed alongside aluminum step wedge and human enamel and dentin. Occlusal radiograph was taken and mean gray values of the test materials were measured using Image J software. Then a conversion was performed to establish the radiopacity of the test materials, in millimeters of equivalent Aluminum (Al). Data were analyzed using one‑way analysis of variance and Scheffe’s Post Hoc tests (P < 0.05).
Results:
The radiopacity values varied among the restorative materials (p < 0.05) with the highest for Filtek followed by Beautifil Injectable, Beautifil 2, enamel and dentin.
Conclusion:
All materials tested had radiopacity values greater than dentin and had sufficient radiopacity to meet International Organization for Standardization 4049 standard.
Key Words: Radiopacity, aluminum stepwedge, composites, opacifing-fillers.
References
2. Ergücü Z, Türkün LS, Onem E, Güneri P. Comparative radiopacity of six flowable resin composites. Oper Dent. 2010 Jul-Aug;35(4):436-40.
3. Nadhum NS, Jehad RH, AbdulKareem S, Al-Hashimi RA. Assessing The Radiopacity of Three Resin Composite Materials Using a Digital Radiography Technique. J Bagh Coll Dent [Internet]. 2017 Sep. 15
4. Yildrim D, Ermis RB, Gormez O, Yildiz G. Comparison of radiopacities of different flowable composites. J Oral Maxillofac Radiol 2014;2:21-5
5. Salzedas LM, Louzada MJ, de Oliveira Filho AB. Radiopacity of restorative materials using digital images. J Appl Oral Sci. 2006 Apr;14(2):147-52.
6. Ermis RB, Yildirim D, Yildiz G, Gormez O. Radiopacity evaluation of contemporary resin composites by digitization of images. Eur J Dent. 2014 Jul;8(3):342-347.
7. Tanthanuch S, Kukiattrakoon B, Siriporananon C, Ornprasert N, Mettasitthikorn W, Likhitpreeda S et al. The effect of different beverages on surface hardness of nanohybrid resin composite and giomer. J Conserv Dent. 2014 May;17(3):261-5.
8. Najma Hajira NSW, Meena N (2015) GIOMER- The Intelligent Particle (New Generation Glass Ionomer Cement). Int J Dent Oral Health 2(4)
9. Espelid I, Tveit AB, Erickson RL, Keck SC, Glasspoole EA. Radiopacity of restorations and detection of secondary caries. Dent Mater. 1991 Apr;7(2):114-7.
10. Wayne D. Cook An investigation of the radiopacity of composite restorative materials. Australian Dental Journal, April, 1981 Volume 26, No. 2
11. Williams JA, Billington RW. A new technique for measuring the radiopacity of natural tooth substance and restorative materials. J Oral Rehabil. 1987 May;14(3):267-9.
12. 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 Jan;24(1):141-7.
13. Dukic W, Delija B, Derossi D, Dadic I. Radiopacity of composite dental materials using a digital X-ray system. Dent Mater J. 2012 Feb 3;31(1):47-53.
14. Vagkopoulou T, Koutayas SO, Koidis P, Strub JR. Zirconia in dentistry: Part 1. Discovering the nature of an upcoming bioceramic. Eur J Esthet Dent. 2009 Summer;4(2):130-51.
15. Piconi C, Maccauro G. Zirconia as a ceramic biomaterial. Biomaterials. 1999 Jan;20(1):1-25.
