• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.32 no.5
• /
• pp.419-425
• /
• 2007

The aim of this study was to evaluate the radiopacity and cytotoxicity of three resin-based (AH 26, EZ fill and AD Seal), a zinc oxide-eugenol-based (ZOB Seal), and a calcium hydroxide-based (Sealapex) root canal sealers. Specimens, 10 mm in diameter and 1 mm in thickness, were radiographed simultaneously with an aluminum step wedge using occlusal films, according to ISO 6876/2001 standards. Radiographs were digitized, and the radiopacity of sealers was compared to the different thicknesses of the aluminum step wedge, using the Scion image software. Using the 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay, the cytotoxicity of each material was determined in immortalized human periodontal ligament (IPDL) cells. The results demonstrated that EZ fill was the most radiopaque sealer, while Sealapex was the least radiopaque (p < 0.05). AH 26, AD Seal and ZOB Seal presented intermediate radiopacity values. All the materials evaluated, except for Sealapex, presented the minimum radiopacity required by ISO standards. The cell viabilities of resin-based root canal sealers were statistically higher than that of other type of root canal sealers through the all experimental time. Further, EZ fill showed statistically lower cell viability in 24 and 48 hours compared to AD Seal and in 72 hours compared to all other resin-based root canal sealers. However, there was no correlation between the radiopacity and cytotoxicity of three resin-based root canals sealers (p > 0.05). These results indicate that resin-based root canal sealer is more biocompatible and has advantage in terms of radiopacity.

• Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science
• /
• v.29 no.4
• /
• pp.377-383
• /
• 2013

This study examined the radiopacity of eight contemporary luting cements by direct digital radiography. Five disc-shaped specimens ($5mm{\times}1mm$) were prepared for each material tested (BisCem, Clearfil SA Luting, Duolink, Maxcem Elite, Multilink Speed, Panavia F 2.0, RelyX Unicem Clicker, V-link). The specimens were radiographed using a Kodak CS 7600 image plate (Carestream Health, Inc., Rochester, NY, USA) and an aluminum step wedge with a range of thicknesses (1.5 to 16.5 mm in 1.5 mm increments) and a 1 mm tooth used as a reference. A dental X-ray machine Kodak 2200 Intraoral X-ray System (Carestream Health, Inc., Rochester, NY, USA), operating at 70 kVp, 4 mA, 0.156 s and a source-to-sample distance of 30 cm, was used. According to international standards, the radiopacity of the specimens was compared with that of an aluminum step wedge using NIH ImageJ software (available at http://rsb.info.nih.gov/ij/).The data was analyzed by ANOVA and a Tukey's post hoc test. Maxcem Elite (5.66) showed the highest radiopacity of all materials, followed in order by Multilink Speed (3.87) and V-link (2.83). The radiopacity of Clearfil SA Luting (1.35), BisCem (1.33), Panavia F 2.0 (1.29) and Duolink (1.10) were between enamel (1.79) and dentin (0.19). RelyX Unicem Clicker (0.71) showed the lowest radiopacity, which was higher than that of dentin. All materials showed a radiopacity above the minimum recommended by the International Organization for Standardization and the American National Standards/American Dental Association with the exception of RelyX Unicem Clicker.