Zerrin Unal Erzurumlu1, Cennet Elcin Sagirkaya2, Kerem Erzurumlu3. 1. Department of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Ordu University, Ordu, Turkey. zerzurumlu@odu.edu.tr. 2. Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Ordu University, Ordu, Turkey. 3. Department of Computer Programming, Vocational School of Technical Sciences, Ordu University, Ordu, Turkey.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: 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. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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). CLINICAL RELEVANCE: 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.
OBJECTIVE: 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. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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). CLINICAL RELEVANCE: 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.
Authors: Rafael B Junqueira; Rodrigo F Carvalho; Felipe A G F Yamamoto; Solange M Almeida; Francielle S Verner Journal: J Prosthodont Date: 2018-10-28 Impact factor: 2.752