Murchison D F, Charlton D G, Moore W S
Department of General Dentistry, Lackland Air Force Base, Texas 78236-5551, USA.
Quintessence Int. 1999 Mar;30(3):179-84.
This in vitro investigation aimed to determine the radiopacity of eight recently introduced "flowable" restorative resin composites and to compare their radiodensities to those of enamel, dentin, and a widely used composite marketed for universal application in anterior and posterior teeth.
A total of 45 composite specimens were fabricated in cylindrical molds and exposed to a curing light for 120 seconds. Two methods were used to determine radiopacity: a transmission densitometer and a computer-assisted densitometric image analysis station.
Of the eight flowable resin composites tested, only three exhibited a radiopacity equal to or greater than that of enamel, a widely followed guideline for clinicians' diagnostic ability. The radiopacity of the remaining five materials was not statistically significantly greater than that of dentin.
The level of radiopacity of the tested flowable composites was variable; those with low radiodensity should be avoided in Class II restorations, where a clear determination of recurrent caries by the examining clinician could be compromised.
本体外研究旨在测定八种新推出的“可流动”修复性树脂复合材料的射线不透性，并将它们的射线密度与釉质、牙本质以及一种广泛用于前后牙通用修复的复合材料的射线密度进行比较。
总共在圆柱形模具中制作45个复合材料标本，并在固化灯下照射120秒。使用两种方法测定射线不透性：透射密度计和计算机辅助密度图像分析站。
在测试的八种可流动树脂复合材料中，只有三种的射线不透性等于或大于釉质，这是临床医生诊断能力的一个广泛遵循的指导标准。其余五种材料的射线不透性在统计学上并不显著高于牙本质。
测试的可流动复合材料的射线不透性水平各不相同；在II类修复中应避免使用射线密度低的材料，因为这可能会影响检查临床医生对复发性龋齿的明确诊断。
