Imaging Science in Dentistry

Korean Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology (대한영상치의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

How does duration of curing affect the radiopacity of dental materials?

  • Received : 2012.03.08
  • Accepted : 2012.04.19
  • Published : 2012.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose : Clinicians commonly encounter cases in which it is difficult to determine whether adjacent radiopacities are normal or pathologic. The ideal radiopacity of composite resin is equal to or higher than that of the same thickness of aluminum. We aimed to investigate the possible effects of different curing times on the post-24-hour radiopacity of composite resins on digital radiographs. Materials and Methods : One mm thick samples of Filtek P60 and Clearfil resin composites were prepared and cured with three regimens of continuous 400 mW/$cm^2$ irradiance for 10, 20 and 30 seconds. Along with a 12-step aluminum step wedge, digital radiographs were captured and the radiopacities were transformed to the equivalent aluminum thicknesses. Data were compared by a general linear model and repeated-measures of ANOVA. Results : Overall, the calculated equivalent aluminum thicknesses of composite resins were increased significantly by doubling and tripling the curing times (F(2,8)=8.94, p=0.002). Notably, Bonferroni post-hoc tests confirmed that the radiopacity of the cured Filtek P60 was significantly higher at 30 seconds compared with 10 seconds (p=0.04). Although the higher radiopacity was observed by increasing the time, other comparisons showed no statistical significance (p>0.05). Conclusion : These results supported the hypothesis that the radiopacity of resin composites might be related to the duration of light curing. In addition to the current standards for radiopacity of digital images, defining a standard protocol for curing of dental materials should be considered, and it is suggested that they should be added to the current requirements for dental material.

Keywords

References

  1. Zimmerli B, Strub M, Jeger F, Stadler O, Lussi A. Composite materials: composition, properties and clinical applications. A literature review. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 2010; 120 : 972-86.
  2. Nagem Filho H, Nagem HD, Francisconi PA, Franco EB, Mondelli RF, Coutinho KQ. Volumetric polymerization shrinkage of contemporary composite resins. J Appl Oral Sci 2007; 15 : 448-52. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1678-77572007000500014
  3. American Dental Association. Obstacles to the development of a standard for posterior composite resins. Council on Dental Materials, Instruments, and Equipment. J Am Dent Assoc 1989; 118 : 649-51. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1989.0070
  4. Imperiano MT, Khoury HJ, Pontual ML, Montes MA, Silveira MM. Comparative radiopacity of four low-viscosity composites. Braz J Oral Sci 2007; 6 : 1278-82.
  5. Cook WD. An investigation of the radiopacity of composite restorative materials. Aust Dent J 1981; 26 : 105-12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1834-7819.1981.tb02443.x
  6. Gu S, Rasimick BJ, Deutsch AS, Musikant BL. Radiopacity of dental materials using a digital X-ray system. Dent Mater 2006; 22 : 765-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2005.11.004
  7. International Organization for Standardization. ISO 4049: 2009. Dentistry - Polymer based restorative materials. 4th ed. Geneva: ISO; 2009.
  8. Watts DC, McCabe JF. Aluminium radiopacity standards for dentistry: an international survey. J Dent 1999; 27 : 73-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-5712(98)00025-6
  9. Nomoto R, Mishima A, Kobayashi K, McCabe JF, Darvell BW, Watts DC, et al. Quantitative determination of radioopacity: equivalence of digital and film X-ray systems. Dent Mater 2008; 24 : 141-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2007.08.005
  10. Malhotra N, Mala K. Light-curing considerations for resinbased composite materials: a review. Part II. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2010; 31 : 584-91.
  11. Jeong TS, Kang HS, Kim SK, Kim S, Kim HI, Kwon YH. The effect of resin shades on microhardness, polymerization shrinkage, and color change of dental composite resins. Dent Mater J 2009; 28 : 438-45. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.28.438
  12. Leung RL, Fan PL, Johnston WM. Post-irradiation polymerization of visible light-activated composite resins. J Dent Res 1983; 62 : 363-5. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345830620031201
  13. Pereira RA, Araujo PA, Castañeda-Espinosa JC, Mondelli RF. Comparative analysis of the shrinkage stress of composite resins. J Appl Oral Sci 2008; 16 : 30-4. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1678-77572008000100007
  14. Halvorson RH, Erickson RL, Davidson CL. The effect of filler and silane content on conversion of resin-based composite. Dent Mater 2003; 19 : 327-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0109-5641(02)00062-3
  15. Price RB, Felix CA, Andreou P. Evaluation of a second-generation LED curing light. J Can Dent Assoc 2003; 69 : 666.
  16. Weinmann W, Thalacker C, Guggenberger R. Siloranes in dental composites. Dent Mater 2005; 21 : 68-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2004.10.007
  17. Heo MS, Choi DH, Benavides E, Huh KH, Yi WJ, Lee SS, et al. Effect of bit depth and kVp of digital radiography for detection of subtle differences. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2009; 108 : 278-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2008.12.053

Cited by

  1. Mineral Trioxide Aggregate—A Review of Properties and Testing Methodologies vol.10, pp.11, 2012, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma10111261