A Study on the Radiopacity of Cavity Lining Materials for Posterior Composite Resin Restoration

구치부 복합레진 수복을 위한 와동 이장용 재료의 방사선투과성에 관한 연구

Purpose: The aim of this study was to determine the relative radiopacities of cavity lining materials (Resin-modified Glass Ionomer cement, Compomer and Plowable resin) for posterior composite resin restoration. Material & Methods: Resin-modified glass ionomer cement (Fuji II LC, Vitrebond/sup TM/), Compomers (Dyract /sup (R)/ Compoglass, F2,000, Dyract/sup (R)/ flow Compoglass Flow) and Flowable resins (Tetric/sup (R)/ flow, Aeliteflo/sup TM/ Revolution/sup TM/) were used. Five specimens of 5 mm in diameter and 2 mm thick were fabricated with each material. Human molars were horizontally sectioned 2 mm thick to include both enamel and dentin. The radiopacities of enamel, dentin, cavity lining materials, aluminum step wedge were obtainded from conventional radiograph and NIH image program. Results: All the tested lining materials showed levels of radiopacity the same as or greater than that of dentin. All compomer tested (Dyract, Compoglass, F2,000, Dyract flow, Compoglass Flow) and Vitrebond/sup TM/, Tetric/sup (R)/ flow were more radiopaque than enamel. The radiopacities of Fuji II LC and Revolution/sup TM/ were between enamel and dentin and resin-modified glass ionomer cement, Compomer and Tetric/sup (R)/ flow were greater than those of Revolution/sup TM/, Aeliteflo/sup TM/ or dentin. The level of radiopacity of the tested materials was variable; those with low radiopacity should be avoided in class II restorations, where a clear determination of recurrent caries by the examining clinician could be compromised. Conclusion: Clinician should be able to distinguish these cavity lining materials radiographically from recurrent decay, voids, gaps, or other defects that lead to clinical failure. Utilization of materials ranked more radiopaque than enamel would enable clinicians to distinguish the lining material from tooth structure.