Yeni Bir Dolgu Maddesi Olan Cention N'in Radyoopasitesinin Değerlendirilmesi

Year 2023, , 43 - 47, 02.05.2023

Bilal Özmen , Zeynep Kaya

https://doi.org/10.17214/gaziaot.1143846

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, Cention N isimli dolgu maddesinin radyoopasitesinin farklı restoratif materyaller ile karşılaştırılmalı olarak değerlendirilmesidir.
Gereç ve yöntem: Çalışmada, 9 farklı restoratif materyal, 1 mm kalınlıkta mine ve dentin içeren süt dişi kesiti kullanıldı. Geleneksel cam iyonomer (Kavitan Plus, Spofa Dental, Czech Republic), rezin modifiye cam iyonomer (Riva Light Cure, SDI, LC/Southern Dental Industries), hibrit cam iyonomer (Equia Forte Fil, GC, Tokyo, Japan), posterior kompozit (Gradia Direct, GC, Japan), universal kompozit (Filtek Z250, 3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, ABD), anterior kompozit (Estelite Asteria, Tokuyama, Japan), kompomer (Glasiosite, Voco, Germany), kapsül amalgam (Rubycap, İncidental, Türkiye), Cention N (Ivoclar, Vivadent) (otopolimerizasyon) ve Cention N (Ivoclar, Vivadent) (fotopolimerizasyon) olmak üzere 10 örnek grubu oluşturuldu. Her bir restoratif materyal örneği 10 mm çapında ve 2 mm kalınlığında silindir şeklinde hazırlandı. Örneklerin ve alüminyum penetrometrenin dijital radyografileri fosfor plak kullanılarak elde edildi. Materyallerin radyografik densitesi Photoshop (Adobe, 2020) yazılımı ile ölçüldü. Örneklerin eşdeğer alüminyum kalınlığını bulmak için Curve Expert Pro 2.0.3 yazılımı kullanıldı. Verilerin analizinde One-way ANOVA ve Tukey testleri kullanıldı.
Bulgular: Grupların opasite ölçümleri arasındaki fark anlamlı bulundu (p<0,001). En yüksek ölçüm değeri amalgam grubunda, en düşük ölçüm değeri ise dentin grubunda gözlendi. Cention N materyalinin otopolimerizasyon grubu, fotopolimerizasyon grubundan daha opak bulundu (p<0,001).
Sonuç: Tüm restoratif materyaller dentin dokusundan daha opak yapıdadır. Yeni geliştirilen Cention N materyalinin opasitesi oldukça yüksektir. Polimerizasyon şekli Cention N' in opasitesini etkilemektedir.

Keywords

Alüminyum penetrometre, dental materyal, dentin, mine, radyoopasite

Evaluation of the Radiopacity of a Novel Restorative Material “Cention N”

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the radiopacity of Cention N in comparison with different restorative materials.
Materials and Method: In the study, 9 different restorative materials and 1 mm thick primary teeth section containing enamel and dentine was used. Ten groups were determined as traditional glass ionomer (Kavitan Plus, Spofa Dental, Czech Republic), resin modified glass ionomer (Riva Light Cure, SDI, LC/Southern Dental Industries), hybrid glass ionomer (Equia Forte Fil, GC, Tokyo, Japan), posterior composite (Gradia Direct, GC, Japan), universal composite (Filtek Z250, 3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, ABD), anterior composite (Estelite Asteria, Tokuyama, Japan), compomer (Glasiosite, Voco, Germany), capsule amalgam (Rubycap, İncidental, Turkiye), Cention N (Ivoclar, Vivadent) (autopolymerization) and Cention N (Ivoclar, Vivadent) (photopolymerization). Each restorative material sample was prepared as a cylindrically, 10x2 mm thickness. Digital radiographs of the samples and the aluminum penetrometer were obtained using a phosphor plate. The radiographic density of the materials was measured with Photoshop software (Adobe, 2020). One-way ANOVA and Tukey tests were used for data analysis.
Results: The difference between the opacity measurements of the groups was found to be significant (p<0.001). The highest measurement value was observed in the amalgam group and the lowest value was observed in the dentin group. Autopolymerization group of Cention N was found to be more opaque than photopolymerization group (p<0.001).
Conclusion: All restorative materials are more opaque than dentine tissue. The opacity of the newly developed Cention N material is quite high. The polymerization type affects the opacity of Cention N.

Keywords

aluminum penetrometer, dental material, dentine, enamel, radiopacity

References

• 1. Abdallah RM, Aref NS. Development of newly formulated nanoalumina-/alkasite-based restorative material. Int J Dent. 26;2021:9944909.
• 2. Mohammadi N, Kimyai S, Ghavami Lahij Y, Bahari M, Ajami AA, Abed Kahnamouei M, et al. Comparison of the effect of bleaching with 15% carbamide peroxide and 35% hydrogen peroxide on flexural strength of Cention N in selfcured and dual-cured polymerization modes. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects. 2020;14(2):105-109.
• 3. Sunyaruri E, Nainggolan TR, Angelia P, Sumantadireja YH, Gartika M. PRR Using Cention N® in children's teeth. Journal Of Applied Dental and Medical Sciences. 2019;5:2.
• 4. Özmen B. Yeni bir restoratif materyal" Cention N". Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Dergisi.3(2):84-90.
• 5. Hitij T, Fidler A. Radiopacity of dental restorative materials. Clin Oral Investig. 2013;17(4):1167-1177.
• 6. Sun C, Xu D, Hou C, Zhang H, Li Y, Zhang Q, et al. Core-shell structured SiO2@ ZrO2@ SiO2 filler for radiopacity and ultra-low shrinkage dental composite resins. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2021 Sep;121:104593.
• 7. Yasa B, Kucukyilmaz E, Yasa E, Ertas ET. Comparative study of radiopacity of resin-based and glass ionomer-based bulk-fill restoratives using digital radiography. J Oral Sci. 2015;57(2):79-85.
• 8. Cruz AD, Esteves R, Poiate I, Portero P, Almeida S. Influence of radiopacity of dental composites on the diagnosis of secondary caries: the correlation between objective and subjective analyses. Oper Dent. 2014;39(1):90-97.
• 9. Gu S, Rasimick BJ, Deutsch AS, Musikant BL. Radiopacity of dental materials using a digital X-ray system. Dent Mater. 2006;22(8):765-770.
• 10. Ermis RB, Yildirim D, Yildiz G, Gormez O. Radiopacity evaluation of contemporary resin composites by digitization of images. Eur J Dent. 2014;8(3):342-347.
• 11. Dionysopoulos D, Tolidis K, Gerasimou P, Papadopoulos C. Effect of filler composition of dental composite restorative materials on radiopacity in digital radiographic images. Polym Compos. 2018;39:E351-E357.
• 12. Koshi F, Cengiz E, Faruk E, Ulusoy N. Restoratif Diş Hekimliğinde Nanoteknoloji. Ata Diş Hek Fak Derg. 2015;25(2).
• 13. Saridag S, Helvacioglu-Yigit D, Alniacik G, Özcan M. Radiopacity measurements of direct and indirect resin composites at different thicknesses using digital image analysis. Dent Mater J. 2015;34(1):13-18.
• 14. Watts D, McCabe J. Aluminium radiopacity standards for dentistry: an international survey. J Dent. 1999;27(1):73-78.
• 15. Ergücü Z, Türkün LS, Önem E, Güneri P. Comparative radiopacity of six flowable resin composites. Oper Dent. 2010;35(4):436-440.
• 16. Tarcin B, Gumru B, Peker S, Ovecoglu H. Evaluation of radiopacity of bulk-fill flowable composites using digital radiography. Oper Dent. 2016;41(4):424-431.
• 17. Yildirim T, Ayar M, Akdag M, Yesilyurt C. Radiopacity of bulk fill flowable resin composite materials. Niger J Clin Pract. 2017;20(2):200-204.
• 18. Dukic W, Delija B, Derossi D, Dadic I. Radiopacity of composite dental materials using a digital X-ray system. Dent Mater J. 2012:3;31(1):47-53.
• 19. Soares C, Rosatto C, Carvalho V, Bicalho A, Henriques J, Faria-e-Silva A. Radiopacity and porosity of bulk-fill and conventional composite posterior restorations—Digital X-ray analysis. Oper Dent. 2017;42(6):616-625.
• 20. Samanta S, Das UK, Mitra A. Comparison of microleakage in class V cavity restored with flowable composite resin, glass ionomer cement and cention N. Imp J Interdisc Res. 2017;3(8):180-183.
• 21. Todd J. Scientific Documentation: Cention N. Ivoclar-Vivadent Press: Schaan, Liechtenstein. 2016:1-58.
• 22. Jayaraj D, Simon EP, Kumar MR, SV R. Cention N: A Review. Dental Bites. 2018;5:14-21.
• 23. Shimura R, Nikaido T, Yamauti M, Ikeda M, Tagami J. Influence of curing method and storage condition on microhardness of dual-cure resin cements. Dent Mater J. 2005;24(1):70-75.
• 24. Okuda Y, Noda M, Kono H, Miyamoto M, Sato H, Ban S. Radio-opacity of core materials for all-ceramic restorations. Dent Mater J. 2010;29(1):35-40.
• 25. Vivan RR, Ordinola-Zapata R, Bramante CM, Bernardineli N, Garcia RB, Hungaro Duarte MA, et al. Evaluation of the radiopacity of some commercial and experimental root-end filling materials. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2009;108(6):e35-e38.
• 26. Önem E, Baksı BG, Şen BH. Effect of exposure parameters on the radiopacity of root canal sealers. Oral Science International. 2013;10(1):25-27.
• 27. Mir APB, Mir MPB. Assessment of radiopacity of restorative composite resins with various target distances and exposure times and a modified aluminum step wedge. Imaging Sci Dent. 2012;42(3):163-167.
• 28. Salzedas LMP, Louzada MJQ, Oliveira Filho AB. Radiopacity of restorative materials using digital images. J Appl Oral Sci. 2006;14(2):147-152.
• 29. Espelid I, Tveit A, Erickson R, Keck S, Glasspoole E. Radiopacity of restorations and detection of secondary caries. Dent Mater. 1991;7(2):114-117.
• 30. Garoushi S, Vallittu P, Lassila L. Mechanical properties and radiopacity of flowable fiber-reinforced composite. Dent Mater J. 2019;38(2):196-202.
• 31. Pedrosa RF, Brasileiro I, dos Anjos Pontual M, dos Anjos Pontual A, da Silveira M. Influence of materials radiopacity in the radiographic diagnosis of secondary caries: evaluation in film and two digital systems. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2011;40(6):344-350.
• 32. Pekkan G. Radiopacity of dental materials: An overview. Avicenna J. Dent. Res. 2016;8(2):8-8.
• 33. Amirouche A, Mouzali M, Watts D. Radiopacity evaluation of Bis‐GMA/TEGDMA/opaque mineral filler dental composites. J Appl Polym Sci. 2007;104(3):1632-1639.