We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
Quintessence International
Login:
username:

password:

Plattform:

Forgotten password?

Registration

Quintessence Int 43 (2012), No. 5     15. Mar. 2012
Quintessence Int 43 (2012), No. 5  (15.03.2012)

Page 421-428, PubMed:22536594


An in vitro radiographic analysis of the density of dental luting cements as measured by CCD-based digital radiography
Antonijevic, Djordje / Jevremovic, Danimir / Jovanovic, Svetlana / Obradovic-Djuricic, Kosovka
Objective: According to the ISO, the radiopacity of luting cements should be equal to or greater than that of aluminum. The aim of this in vitro study was to determine the radiopacity of 13 commercially available dental luting cements and compare them with human enamel and dentin.
Method and Materials: Five classes of luting cements were evaluated: zinc phosphate (Cegal N and Harvard Zinc Phosphate), zinc polycarboxylate (Harvard Polycarboxylate and Hoffmann's Carboxylate), glass ionomers (Ketac Cem Easymix, Ketac Cem Radiopaque, and Fuji I), resin-modified glass ionomer (Rely X Luting), and resin cements (Multilink Automix, Variolink II, Speed CEM, Rely X Unicem Automix, and three shades of Variolink Veneer). Tooth slices served as controls. Five specimens of each material measuring 8 mm in diameter and 1 mm thick were prepared and radiographed alongside tooth slices and an aluminum stepwedge using a Trophy RVG sensor. The radiopacity values were expressed in mm Al and analyzed by the ANOVA and Tukey tests (P < .05).
Results: All the cements examined except Variolink Veneer had significantly higher radiopacities than that of dentin. Rely X Unicem Automix, glass ionomer, and resin-modified glass-ionomer cements demonstrated radiopacities that were not significantly different with respect to enamel. Zinc phosphate, zinc polycarboxylate, and three of the resin cements presented radiopacity values that were significantly greater than that of enamel.
Conclusion: Almost all the investigated materials presented an acceptable radiopacity. Radiopacity of dental cements seems to depend more on the presence of elements with high atomic numbers than on the type of the material.

Keywords: dental hard tissue, digital radiography, luting cement, radiopacity