OBJECTIVES: In recent years various root-end filling materials have been suggested for clinical use. The purpose of this study was to assess the radiopacity of some potential materials according to ISO specification 6876. STUDY DESIGN: Radiographs were taken of 1-mm thick specimens of eight materials (amalgam, Kalzinol, IRM, Super EBA, Vitrebond, Fuji II LC, Chemfil, gutta-percha); light transmission was assessed densitometrically and related to equivalent thickness of aluminum. RESULTS: Commercial glass ionomer cements (Vitrebond, Fuji II LC, Chemfil) had radiopacities below the international standard for root canal sealers (< 3-mm aluminum); three zinc oxide-eugenol cements (Kalzinol, Super EBA, IRM) had radiopacities equivalent to 5 to 8 mm aluminum; and gutta-percha had a radiopacity equivalent to 6.1-mm aluminum. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend that root-end filling materials should have a radiopacity greater than that for root canal sealers.
OBJECTIVES: In recent years various root-end filling materials have been suggested for clinical use. The purpose of this study was to assess the radiopacity of some potential materials according to ISO specification 6876. STUDY DESIGN: Radiographs were taken of 1-mm thick specimens of eight materials (amalgam, Kalzinol, IRM, Super EBA, Vitrebond, Fuji II LC, Chemfil, gutta-percha); light transmission was assessed densitometrically and related to equivalent thickness of aluminum. RESULTS: Commercial glass ionomer cements (Vitrebond, Fuji II LC, Chemfil) had radiopacities below the international standard for root canal sealers (< 3-mm aluminum); three zinc oxide-eugenol cements (Kalzinol, Super EBA, IRM) had radiopacities equivalent to 5 to 8 mm aluminum; and gutta-percha had a radiopacity equivalent to 6.1-mm aluminum. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend that root-end filling materials should have a radiopacity greater than that for root canal sealers.