Department of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Ordu University, Ordu, Turkey.
Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Ordu University, Ordu, Turkey.
Clin Oral Investig. 2021 Oct;25(10):5735-5741. doi: 10.1007/s00784-021-03875-y. Epub 2021 Mar 11.
This study aims to compare the radiopacities of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacture (CAD/CAM) blocks and the adhesive cements used for their bonding.
1 ± 0.2 mm thick specimens were obtained from six different CAD/CAM blocks (Incoris TZI, IPS e.max CAD, Vita Mark II, Cerasmart, Vita Enamic, and Vita Suprinity), four different adhesive resin cements (Panavia F2.0, Variolink Esthetic DC, RelyX Unicem Aplicap, G-CEM LinkAce), and a tooth. Radiographs of the specimens from each group, a tooth section, and an aluminum (Al) step-wedge were acquired. The radiopacity values of the materials were calculated as equivalents of Al thickness using the gray level values. The data were statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey HSD tests.
All the materials except Cerasmart and Vita Enamic had significantly higher radiopacity values than dentin (p < 0.05). Of the assessed blocks, the highest radiopacity value was observed in Incoris TZI, and the lowest radiopacity value was observed in Vita Enamic. Variolink Esthetic DC and RelyX Unicem Aplicap showed significantly higher radiopacity (p < 0.05) than the other adhesive cements, including enamel and dentin.
In this study, the majority of the CAD/CAM materials and all the adhesive resin cements were found to have sufficient radiopacity for prosthetic restorations according to the criteria set by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO).
From a clinical and biological point of view, materials should be chosen according to their radiopacity and other properties, such as biocompatibility and esthetics. If the selected restorative CAD/CAM blocks have a radiopacity value less than or equal to dentin, cements with higher radiopacity values are recommended to facilitate radiological diagnoses for periphery and interface of restorations.
本研究旨在比较计算机辅助设计/计算机辅助制造(CAD/CAM)块的射线不透性及其用于粘接的粘接剂。
从六种不同的 CAD/CAM 块(Incoris TZI、IPS e.max CAD、Vita Mark II、Cerasmart、Vita Enamic 和 Vita Suprinity)、四种不同的粘接树脂水门汀(Panavia F2.0、Variolink Esthetic DC、RelyX Unicem Aplicap、G-CEM LinkAce)和一颗牙齿中获得 1±0.2mm 厚的样本。获取每组样本、牙齿切片和铝(Al)台阶楔形片的射线照片。使用灰度值计算材料的射线不透性值,作为 Al 厚度的等效值。使用单向方差分析和 Tukey HSD 检验对数据进行统计学分析。
除 Cerasmart 和 Vita Enamic 外,所有材料的射线不透性值均显著高于牙本质(p<0.05)。在所评估的块中,Incoris TZI 的射线不透性值最高,Vita Enamic 的射线不透性值最低。Variolink Esthetic DC 和 RelyX Unicem Aplicap 的射线不透性显著高于其他粘接水门汀,包括牙釉质和牙本质。
根据国际标准化组织(ISO)设定的标准,本研究中大多数 CAD/CAM 材料和所有粘接树脂水门汀均具有足够的射线不透性,适用于修复体。
从临床和生物学的角度来看,应根据材料的射线不透性和其他特性,如生物相容性和美观性来选择材料。如果所选的修复 CAD/CAM 块的射线不透性值小于或等于牙本质,则建议使用射线不透性值更高的水门汀,以方便对修复体的外围和界面进行放射学诊断。