A study on the radiopacity of cavity lining materials for posterior composite resin restoration.
- Author:
Joo Hoon MOON
1
;
Eui Hwan CHOI
Author Information
1. Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Chosun University, Korea. yhchoi@mail.chosun.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Radiopacity;
Base and Liner;
Compomer;
Flowable resin
- MeSH:
Aluminum;
Compomers;
Dental Enamel;
Dentin;
Glass Ionomer Cements;
Humans;
Molar;
Tooth
- From:Korean Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology
2000;30(4):243-248
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine the relative radiopacities of cavity lining materials (Resin-modified Glass Ionomer cement, Compomer and Flowable resin) for posterior composite resin restoration. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Resin-modified glass ionomer cement (Fuji II LC, Vitrebond(TM)), Compomers (Dyract , Compoglass, F2000, Dyract(R) flow Compoglass Flow) and Flowable resins (Tetric(R) flow, Aeliteflo(TM) Revolution(TM)) were used. Five specimens of 5mm in diameter and 2mm thick were fabricated with each material. Human molars were horizontally sectioned 2mm thick to include both enamel and dentin. The radiopacities of enamel, dentin, cavity lining materials, aluminum step wedge were obtainded from conventional radiograph and NIH image program. RESULTS: All the tested lining materials showed levels of radiopacity the same as or greater than that of dentin. All compomer tested (Dyract(R), Compoglass, F2000, Dyract(R) flow, Compoglass Flow) and Vitrebond(TM), Tetric(R) flow were more radiopaque than enamel. The radiopacities of Fuji II LC and Revolution(TM) were between enamel and dentin and resin-modified glass ionomer cement, Compomer and Tetric(R) flow were greater than those of Revolution(TM), Aeliteflo(TM) or dentin. The level of radiopacity of the tested materials was variable; those with low radiopacity should be avoided in class II restorations, where a clear determination of recurrent caries by the examining clinician could be compromised. CONCLUSON: Clinician should be able to distinguish these cavity lining materials radiographically from recurrent decay, voids, gaps, or other defects that lead to clinical failure. Utilization of materials ranked more radiopaque than enamel would enable clinicians to distinguish the lining material from tooth structure.
