PURPOSE: To compare the radiopacity of 13 restorative materials, (a conventional glass-ionomer cement, three resin-modified glass-ionomer cements, six polyacid-modified resin-based composites, and three resin-based composites) to sound tooth structure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 315 specimens were made of the restorative materials (n = 21), of 2 mm height and 4.1 mm diameter. Radiographs were taken of the specimens, together with the tooth structure sample and an aluminum step wedge. The radiopacity values of each specimen were taken using a transmission densitometer. RESULTS: ANOVA and Tukey's test (95% level of confidence) revealed that, except for a resin-based composite, a polyacid-modified resin-based composite, a resin-modified glass-ionomer cement and the conventional glass-ionomer cement, all the evaluated restorative materials were more radiopaque than the tooth structure.
PURPOSE: To compare the radiopacity of 13 restorative materials, (a conventional glass-ionomer cement, three resin-modified glass-ionomer cements, six polyacid-modified resin-based composites, and three resin-based composites) to sound tooth structure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 315 specimens were made of the restorative materials (n = 21), of 2 mm height and 4.1 mm diameter. Radiographs were taken of the specimens, together with the tooth structure sample and an aluminum step wedge. The radiopacity values of each specimen were taken using a transmission densitometer. RESULTS: ANOVA and Tukey's test (95% level of confidence) revealed that, except for a resin-based composite, a polyacid-modified resin-based composite, a resin-modified glass-ionomer cement and the conventional glass-ionomer cement, all the evaluated restorative materials were more radiopaque than the tooth structure.