Radiopacity of Resin Cements Using Digital Radiography

• Published in: Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry Vol. 29; no. 3; pp. 215 - 221
• Main Authors: Hosney, Sherif, Abouelseoud, Hanan K, El‐Mowafy, Omar
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.05.2017
• Subjects: Aluminum; Ceramics; Data processing; Dental cement; Dental enamel; Dental restorative materials; Dentin; Dentistry; Radiography; Studies
• ISSN: 1496-4155; 1708-8240
• DOI: 10.1111/jerd.12288

ABSTRACT Statement of Problem Monitoring performance of glass‐ceramic based indirect restorations using radiographic imaging might be difficult due to their low radiopacity. Therefore, materials used for their cementation must possess adequate radiopacity. Purpose This study determined radiopacity of a group of resin‐cements used for adhesive‐cementation of glass‐ceramic‐based restorations using digital radiography. Methods Two specimens were prepared from a group of resin cements (VariolinkII‐opaque, VariolinkII‐opaque (base), VariolinkII‐Transparent, VariolinkII‐Transparent (base), Nexus, RelyX Unicem, RelyX ultimate, Duolink, Monocem and Resinomer) and longitudinal sections of same thickness were obtained from molar and premolar. Specimens were assigned to two groups one had molar section with 10 specimens whereas other had premolar with remaining 10 specimens. Each group was placed on digital radiograph sensor (Schick CDR, size 2) together with aluminum step‐wedge. Sensor was exposed to X‐ray using standard technique. Two images were obtained for each group. Pixel measurements were made using NIH Image‐J software. Mean pixel measurements were converted into aluminum thickness equivalents. Data were statistically‐analyzed using one‐way ANOVA and Tukey's tests. Results ANOVA revealed significant difference in mean pixel values among cements (p < 0.001). VariolinkII‐opaque showed highest mean aluminum equivalent (4.6 mm Al/1 mm) followed by VariolinkII‐opaque‐Base (4.5 mm Al/1 mm), VariolinkII‐transparent (4.45 mm Al/1 mm), VariolinkII‐transparent‐Base (4.45 mm Al/1 mm), Nexus (2.95 mm Al/1 mm), Duolink (2.7 mm Al/1 mm), RelyX Unicem (2.2 mm Al/1 mm) and finally RelyX ultimate (2 mm Al/1 mm). All cements had mean radiopacity values higher than that of enamel whereas Monocem (1.25 mm Al/1 mm) and Resinomer (1.2 mm Al/1 mm) had means between those of enamel and dentin. Conclusions All tested resin‐cements showed radiopacity values higher than that of dentin which is adequate for diagnostic purposes according to ISO recommendation. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE The use of resin cement with adequate radiopacity for adhesive cementation of glass‐ceramic based restorations enables their radiographic monitoring. (J Esthet Restor Dent 29:215–221, 2017)