I Akcay1, B Ilhan, N Dundar. 1. Department of Endodontics, School of Dentistry Ege University, Bornova, Izmir, Turkey.
Abstract
AIM: To compare the radiopacity of five root filling materials as measured on digitized E-speed films, storage phosphor plate and CCD sensor images. METHODOLOGY: Radiopacity of Resilon cones and Epiphany, MM-Seal, EndoREZ and AH Plus sealers were investigated. Ten acrylic plates were prepared and filled with the materials. Samples were radiographed together with samples of dentine and an aluminium stepwedge. Images were obtained using E-speed films, Digora storage phosphor plates and Schick CDR CCD sensor. Conventional radiographs were digitized using a desktop scanner. Mean grey values of the materials, stepwedge and dentine were measured using the histogram analysis function of Photoshop 7.0. A graph of radiographic density versus thickness of the aluminium was drawn for each image from which the radiographic densities of the materials were determined in relation to the aluminium thickness. The mean was calculated, and the data were analysed using repeated measures anova and Bonferroni tests (P<0.05). RESULTS: There were significant differences between different imaging modalities (P=0.018) and root filling materials (P<0.001). A statistically significant interaction between imaging modality and material was also observed (P<0.001). All materials had radiopacity above 3mm of aluminium regardless of the imaging technique. The radiopacity of Resilon and Epiphany was significantly higher on digital images compared with digitized E-speed film images (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: The choice of imaging system may effect radiopacity measurements. It is possible that radiopacity as recorded on traditional or digitized films is not indicative of the radiopacity as recorded on a digital sensor.
AIM: To compare the radiopacity of five root filling materials as measured on digitized E-speed films, storage phosphor plate and CCD sensor images. METHODOLOGY: Radiopacity of Resilon cones and Epiphany, MM-Seal, EndoREZ and AH Plus sealers were investigated. Ten acrylic plates were prepared and filled with the materials. Samples were radiographed together with samples of dentine and an aluminium stepwedge. Images were obtained using E-speed films, Digora storage phosphor plates and Schick CDR CCD sensor. Conventional radiographs were digitized using a desktop scanner. Mean grey values of the materials, stepwedge and dentine were measured using the histogram analysis function of Photoshop 7.0. A graph of radiographic density versus thickness of the aluminium was drawn for each image from which the radiographic densities of the materials were determined in relation to the aluminium thickness. The mean was calculated, and the data were analysed using repeated measures anova and Bonferroni tests (P<0.05). RESULTS: There were significant differences between different imaging modalities (P=0.018) and root filling materials (P<0.001). A statistically significant interaction between imaging modality and material was also observed (P<0.001). All materials had radiopacity above 3mm of aluminium regardless of the imaging technique. The radiopacity of Resilon and Epiphany was significantly higher on digital images compared with digitized E-speed film images (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: The choice of imaging system may effect radiopacity measurements. It is possible that radiopacity as recorded on traditional or digitized films is not indicative of the radiopacity as recorded on a digital sensor.
Authors: V B Malka; G L Hochscheidt; N L Larentis; F S Grecca; V R C Fontanella; P M P Kopper Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2015-02-20 Impact factor: 2.419