Y Li1, H Lin1, T J Zhang1. 1. Department of Dental Materials & Dental Medical Devices Testing Center, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology & National Center of Stomatology & National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases & National Engineering Laboratory for Digital and Material Technology of Stomatology & NMPA Key Laboratory for Dental Materials, Beijing 100081, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of different imaging methods on radio-opacity. Digital imaging and traditional film imaging were used to determine the radio-opacity of dental composite resin materials. METHODS: Fourteen dental composite resins commonly used in clinic were prepared for disc samples with thickness of 1 mm and diameter of 15 mm respectively. The aluminum step wedge was used as the reference and the disc samples were irradiated with X-rays by the traditional film imaging, phosphor imaging plate and charge-coupled device(CCD) intra-oral X-ray sensor respectively. Exposure was set at 65 kV and 7 mA, with 300 mm focus to film distance and the exposure time was 0.25 s. After developing and fixing the film, the optical density of the image of the sample and that of each step of the aluminum step wedge were measured using the densitometer. The digital image file was exported to grey scale analysis software of Adobe Photoshop® to measure the average grey value in the sample image and aluminum step wedge image. The curves were drawn corresponding to the optical density/gray value of each step of the aluminum step wedge and its thickness, and the equivalent thickness of the aluminum plate was calculated according to the optical density/gray value of the actual measured thickness of the sample, so as to evaluate the radio-opacity of dental composite resin material. RESULTS: For the same sample, the aluminum equivalent measured by traditional film imaging and two other digital imagings had significant differences among the 14 composite resins (P < 0.05), and the aluminum equivalent measured by the two digital imagings were greater than that of the traditional film. Moreover the aluminum equivalent measured by the two digital imagings was also different, and the aluminum equivalent measured by the CCD intra-oral X-ray sensor in most composite resins was larger than that measured by phosphor imaging plate. The same sample was photographed with the same imaging method, and the aluminum equivalent was different after three exposures. The standard deviation of aluminum equivalent measured by phosphor imaging plate was the largest, while that measured by CCD intra-oral X-ray sensor was the smallest. Among the 14 dental composite resin materials, the aluminum equivalent of Tetric N-Ceram and Te-Econom Plus measured by traditional film imaging and phosphor imaging plate was significantly higher than other composite resins. CONCLUSION: Based on clinical significance, three kinds of sensors designed to measure the radio-opacity of dental composite resin, the value of aluminum equivalent will change according to different types of sensors. The aluminum equivalent measured by CCD intra-oral X-ray sensor was higher than that measured by phosphor imaging plate, and the aluminum equivalent measured by phosphor imaging plate was higher than that measured by traditional film imaging. Moreover, even though the same sensor was used, the aluminum equivalent measured by multiple exposures was different. The standard deviation of the aluminum equivalent measured by phosphor imaging plate was greater than that measured by traditional film imaging and CCD intra-oral X-ray sensor. The three sensors in this study could be used for evaluating the radio-opacity of dental composite resin materials. But no matter what kind of sensor was used to measure the radio-opacity of dental composite resin, it complied to ISO 4049: 2019 standard, the materials were suitable for clinical use.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of different imaging methods on radio-opacity. Digital imaging and traditional film imaging were used to determine the radio-opacity of dental composite resin materials. METHODS: Fourteen dental composite resins commonly used in clinic were prepared for disc samples with thickness of 1 mm and diameter of 15 mm respectively. The aluminum step wedge was used as the reference and the disc samples were irradiated with X-rays by the traditional film imaging, phosphor imaging plate and charge-coupled device(CCD) intra-oral X-ray sensor respectively. Exposure was set at 65 kV and 7 mA, with 300 mm focus to film distance and the exposure time was 0.25 s. After developing and fixing the film, the optical density of the image of the sample and that of each step of the aluminum step wedge were measured using the densitometer. The digital image file was exported to grey scale analysis software of Adobe Photoshop® to measure the average grey value in the sample image and aluminum step wedge image. The curves were drawn corresponding to the optical density/gray value of each step of the aluminum step wedge and its thickness, and the equivalent thickness of the aluminum plate was calculated according to the optical density/gray value of the actual measured thickness of the sample, so as to evaluate the radio-opacity of dental composite resin material. RESULTS: For the same sample, the aluminum equivalent measured by traditional film imaging and two other digital imagings had significant differences among the 14 composite resins (P < 0.05), and the aluminum equivalent measured by the two digital imagings were greater than that of the traditional film. Moreover the aluminum equivalent measured by the two digital imagings was also different, and the aluminum equivalent measured by the CCD intra-oral X-ray sensor in most composite resins was larger than that measured by phosphor imaging plate. The same sample was photographed with the same imaging method, and the aluminum equivalent was different after three exposures. The standard deviation of aluminum equivalent measured by phosphor imaging plate was the largest, while that measured by CCD intra-oral X-ray sensor was the smallest. Among the 14 dental composite resin materials, the aluminum equivalent of Tetric N-Ceram and Te-Econom Plus measured by traditional film imaging and phosphor imaging plate was significantly higher than other composite resins. CONCLUSION: Based on clinical significance, three kinds of sensors designed to measure the radio-opacity of dental composite resin, the value of aluminum equivalent will change according to different types of sensors. The aluminum equivalent measured by CCD intra-oral X-ray sensor was higher than that measured by phosphor imaging plate, and the aluminum equivalent measured by phosphor imaging plate was higher than that measured by traditional film imaging. Moreover, even though the same sensor was used, the aluminum equivalent measured by multiple exposures was different. The standard deviation of the aluminum equivalent measured by phosphor imaging plate was greater than that measured by traditional film imaging and CCD intra-oral X-ray sensor. The three sensors in this study could be used for evaluating the radio-opacity of dental composite resin materials. But no matter what kind of sensor was used to measure the radio-opacity of dental composite resin, it complied to ISO 4049: 2019 standard, the materials were suitable for clinical use.
Entities:
Keywords:
Dental composite resin; Digital imaging; Film imaging; Radio-Opacity