Salzedas Leda Maria Pescinini, Louzada Mário Jefferson Quirino, de Oliveira Filho Antonio Braz
Department of Pathology, Araçatuba Dental School, UNESP, São Paulo State University, Vila Mendonça-Araçatuba-São Paulo-Brasil.
J Appl Oral Sci. 2006 Apr;14(2):147-52. doi: 10.1590/s1678-77572006000200015.
The 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.
美观修复材料的射线不透性已被确立为一项重要要求，有助于改善放射诊断。本研究的目的是使用直接数字成像系统评估六种修复材料的射线不透性，并将其与牙体组织（釉质-牙本质）进行比较，以铝的等效厚度（铝毫米数）表示。每种材料制作五个样本。从一颗完整拔除的恒牙（包括釉质和牙本质）上切取三个2毫米厚的纵向切片。使用一个有9个阶梯的铝阶梯楔形块。将不同材料的样本与一个牙齿切片、铝阶梯楔形块和金属代码字母一起放置在磷光板上，并用牙科X射线机进行照射。对评估的每个项目（修复材料、釉质、牙本质、铝阶梯楔形块的每个阶梯）的每张图像进行五次射线密度测量，并计算这些值的平均值。随后将射线不透性值计算为铝厚度的等效值。方差分析（ANOVA）表明材料之间的射线不透性值存在显著差异（P<0.0001）。所评估的修复材料的射线不透性值按降序排列为：TPH、F2000、Synergy、Prisma Flow、Degufill、Luxat。只有Luxat的射线不透性值显著低于牙本质。一种材料（Degufill）的射线不透性值与釉质相似，四种材料（TPH、F2000、Synergy和Prisma Flow）的射线不透性值显著高于釉质。总之，为了评估后牙复合树脂修复体的合适性，重要的是所使用的修复材料要有足够的射线不透性，以便在放射图像中容易与牙齿结构区分开来。了解不同材料的射线不透性有助于专业人员选择最合适的材料，同时还要考虑其他特性，如生物相容性、粘结性和美观性。
