Nejat Amir H, Kee Edwin, Belanger Meghan R, Rajati Hamidreza, Lawson Nathaniel C
Division of Prosthodontics, Louisiana State University School of Dentistry, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.
Louisiana State University School of Dentistry, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.
J Esthet Restor Dent. 2025 Jul;37(7):1882-1890. doi: 10.1111/jerd.13464. Epub 2025 Mar 24.
To measure and compare the radiopacity values of available computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) restorative materials used for the fabrication of long-term single-tooth indirect restorations.
1 and 2 mm thick samples (n = 10 per material) were fabricated from different CAD/CAM materials, including glass-matrix (VITA mark II, Empress CAD, VITA Suprinity, Celtra DUO, and e.max CAD), polycrystalline (3Y zirconia, Katana HTML Plus), and resin-matrix ceramics (VITA Enamic, Lava Ultimate, Flexcera Smile Ultra Plus, Sprintray Ceramic Crown, VarseoSmile TriniQ, and Rodin Sculpture 2.0). The samples were placed on a digital X-ray sensor along with an aluminum step wedge and a tooth section with similar thickness. The gray scale value was measured in Image J software and converted to mmAl using Curve Expert Pro 2.7 software. Data were analyzed with a two-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey tests, with the significance level set at 95% (α = 0.05).
Type of restorative material and thickness had a significant effect on the radiopacity values (p < 0.05). Radiopacity of all tested materials was similar to (Sprintray Ceramics Crown, p > 0.05) or significantly higher (p < 0.05) than the radiopacity of the dentin, except for VITA Mark II, VITA Enamic, Flexcera Smile Ultra Plus, and VarseoSmile TriniQ, which had a significantly lower radiopacity than dentin (p < 0.05).
Radiopacity of evaluated CAD/CAM materials was significantly different. The highest radiopacity was observed in zirconia, and the lowest radiopacity was found in Flexcera Smile Ultra Plus.
Radiopacity of most of the tested CAD/CAM materials was equal to or higher than that of dentin with a similar thickness. However, VITA mark II, VITA Enamic, Flexcera Smile Ultra Plus, VarseoSmile TriniQ had lower radiopacity than dentin and their radiographic evaluation would be dependent on the radiopacity of the cement for detection of recurrent caries. Understanding the radiopacity of each CAD/CAM material helps clinicians select the appropriate material and helps them detect the type of restorative material.
测量并比较用于制作长期单颗牙间接修复体的现有计算机辅助设计/计算机辅助制造(CAD/CAM)修复材料的射线不透性值。
用不同的CAD/CAM材料制作1毫米和2毫米厚的样本(每种材料n = 10),包括玻璃基质(VITA mark II、Empress CAD、VITA Suprinity、Celtra DUO和e.max CAD)、多晶(3Y氧化锆、Katana HTML Plus)以及树脂基质陶瓷(VITA Enamic、Lava Ultimate、Flexcera Smile Ultra Plus、Sprintray Ceramic Crown、VarseoSmile TriniQ和Rodin Sculpture 2.0)。将样本与铝阶梯楔形块和厚度相似的牙体切片一起放置在数字X射线传感器上。在Image J软件中测量灰度值,并使用Curve Expert Pro 2.7软件将其转换为毫米铝当量。数据采用双向方差分析和事后Tukey检验进行分析,显著性水平设定为95%(α = 0.05)。
修复材料类型和厚度对射线不透性值有显著影响(p < 0.05)。除VITA Mark II、VITA Enamic、Flexcera Smile Ultra Plus和VarseoSmile TriniQ的射线不透性显著低于牙本质(p < 0.05)外,所有测试材料的射线不透性与牙本质相似(Sprintray Ceramics Crown,p > 0.05)或显著高于牙本质(p < 0.05)。
评估的CAD/CAM材料的射线不透性存在显著差异。氧化锆的射线不透性最高,Flexcera Smile Ultra Plus的射线不透性最低。
大多数测试的CAD/CAM材料的射线不透性等于或高于相同厚度的牙本质。然而,VITA mark II、VITA Enamic、Flexcera Smile Ultra Plus、VarseoSmile TriniQ的射线不透性低于牙本质,其影像学评估将取决于粘结剂的射线不透性以检测继发龋。了解每种CAD/CAM材料的射线不透性有助于临床医生选择合适的材料,并有助于他们识别修复材料类型。