Takuma Tsuge, DDS,(a) Shoji Kawashima, DDS, PhD,(b) Kazuya Honda, DDS, PhD,(b) Hiroyasu Koizumi, DDS, PhD,(c) Hideo Matsumura, DDS, PhD,(c)and Noriko Hisamatsu, DDS, PhD(d)
(a)Nihon University Graduate School of Dentistry, (b)Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, and Division of Advanced Dental Treatment, Dental Research Center, Nihon University School of Dentistry, (c)Department of Fixed Prosthodontics, and Division of Advanced Dental Treatment, Dental Research Center, Nihon University School of Dentistry, Tokyo, Japan, and (d)Nagasaki University Hospital of Medicine and Dentistry, Nagasaki, JapanPurpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the difference in radiopacity of anterior and posterior composites.
Materials and Methods: Four composites designed for anterior (Litefil II A and Solare A) or posterior restorations (Litefil II P and Solare P) were evaluated. Two self-polymerizing acrylic resins (Unifast III and Provinice) were used as controls. Radiographs of the specimens were taken together with tooth slices and aluminum step wedges. The density of the specimens was determined with a transmission densitometer and was expressed in terms of the equivalent thickness of aluminum per 2.0 mm unit thickness of the specimen (mm Al/2.0 mm specimen).
Results: The radiopacity values of composites ranged from 1.5 to 3.7, whereas the two acrylic resins were radiolucent (less than 0.5).
Conclusion: The radiopacity of composite restorative materials varies considerably, and care must be taken in the selection of materials.(Int Chin J Dent 2008; 8: 49-52.)
Key Words: aluminum, composite, densitometer, radiopacity.