Assessment of the Radiopacity of Different Fissure Sealants Compared to Dental Hard Tissues

Yıl 2024, Sayı: 3, 27 - 35, 15.10.2024

Periş Çelikel , Aybike Baş , Fatih Şengül , Sera Şimşek Derelioğlu

https://doi.org/10.51122/neudentj.2024.112

Öz

Aim: The radiopacity of dental materials is crucial for assessing the radiographic success of restorations and can significantly influence clinicians' choice of materials. The objective of our study is to compare the radiopacity of five fissure sealants with that of compomer, composite, glass ionomer filling, and dental hard tissues using digital imaging techniques.
Material and Method: Five different fissure sealants (Fuji Triage, BeautiSealant, Grandio Seal, Helioseal F Plus, Embrace Wetbond), compomer (Compoglass F), composite (Solare X), and glass ionomer filling (Equa Forte) materials were prepared as 5 samples each in disk form with a thickness of 2 mm. As controls, sections of primary and permanent teeth with a thickness of 2 mm, along with an aluminum step wedge were utilized. The mean gray values of the samples were measured using Image J software, and the equivalent aluminum thickness was subsequently determined. Statistics analysis using Kruskal-Wallis test at p<0.05.
Results: The equivalent aluminum thicknesses related to the radiopacity of fissure sealants are ranked as follows: Fuji Triage (5.2±0.2) > Grandio Seal (3.9±0.2) = permanent tooth enamel (3.7±0.2) = Embrace Wetbond (3.6±0.6) = primary tooth enamel (3.6±0.3) = BeautiSealent (2.1±0.3) > Helioseal F Plus (1.1±0) (p<0.05). The radiopacity equivalent aluminum thicknesses of restorative materials are ranked as follows: Compoglass F (7.3±0.4) > Solare X (4.7±0.3) = Equa Forte (4.4±0.4) = permanent tooth enamel (3.7±0.2) = primary tooth enamel (3.6±0.3) (p<0.05).
Conclusion: Materials like Fuji Triage and Compoglass F exhibit high radiopacity values, which can significantly aid clinical monitoring and restoration success.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Aluminum Step Wedge, Digital Dental Radiography, Radiopacity

Farklı fissür örtücülerin diş sert dokularına kıyasla radyoopasitelerinin değerlendirmesi

Öz

Amaç: Dental materyallerin radyoopasitesi yapılan restorasyonların radyografik başarısının belirlenmesinde rol oynamakta ve hekimlerin malzeme seçimini etkileyebilmektedir. Çalışmamızın amacı beş farklı fissür örtücünün kompomer,kompozit, cam iyonomer dolgu ve diş sert dokularına göre radyoopasitesinin dijital teknikle karşılaştırılmasıdır.
Materyal ve Metod: Beş farklı fissür örtücü (Fuji Triage, BeautiSealant, Grandio Seal, Helioseal F Plus, Embrace Wetbond), kompomer (Compoglass F), kompozit (Solare X) ve cam iyonomer dolgu (Equa Forte) materyallerinden 2 mm kalınlığında 5’er adet disk şeklinde örnekler hazırlandı. Kontrol olarak 2 mm kalınlığındaki süt ve daimi diş kesitleri ve alüminyum kademeli kama kullanıldı. Örneklerin ortalama gri değerleri Image J yazılımı kullanılarak ölçüldü ve eşdeğer alüminyum kalınlığı belirlendi. Veriler Kruskal-Wallis testi kullanılarak analiz edildi (p<0,05).
Bulgular: Fissür örtücülerin radyoopasitesine ait eşdeğer alüminyum kalınlıkları Fuji Triage (5,2±0,2)> Grandio Seal (3,9±0,2) = daimi diş minesi (3,7±0,2) = Embrace Wetbond (3,6±0,6) = süt dişi minesi (3,6±0,3) = BeautiSealent (2,1±0,3)> Helioseal F Plus (1,1±0) şeklinde sıralanmışlardır (p<0,05). Restoratif materyal radyoopasitesine ait eşdeğer alüminyum kalınlıkları ise Compoglass F (7,3±0,4)>Solare X (4,7±0,3) = Equa Forte (4,4±0,4) = daimi diş minesi (3,7±0,2) = süt dişi minesi (3,6±0,3) şeklinde sıralanmıştır (p<0,05).
Sonuç: Fuji Triage ve Compoglass F gibi materyaller yüksek radyoopasite değerleri sergilemekte olup, bu özellikleri klinik takip ve restorasyon başarısında önemlidir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Alüminyum kademeli kama, dental dijital radyografi, radyoopasite

Kaynakça

• Akar M, Alkıs M. An Overview of Pit And Fissure Sealants 2023, in Preventive Dentistry. J Dent Fac Usak Univ.2:36-40.
• Simonsen RJ. Pit and fissure sealant: review of the literature. Pediatric dent. 2002;24:393-414.
• Unlugenc E, Bolgul B. Current Fıssure Sealants - Lıterature Revıew. J Dent Fac Atatürk Uni. 2020;30:507-18.
• Pinkham JR, Casamassimo PS, Henry W, McTigue DJ, Nowak AJ. Pediatric dentistry: infancy through adolescence: 4 th ed. China: Saunders; 1994. 547-50 p.
• Gul P, Caglayan F, Akgul N, Akgul HM. Comparison of radiopacity of different composite resins. J Conserv Dent. 2017;20:17-20.
• Yaylaci A, Karaarslan ES, Hatirli H. Evaluation of the radiopacity of restorative materials with different structures and thicknesses using a digital radiography system. Imaging Sci Dent. 2021;51:261-9.
• Garoushi S, Vallittu P, Lassila L. Mechanical properties and radiopacity of flowable fiber-reinforced composite. Dent Mater J. 2019;38:196-202.
• Martinez-Rus F, Garcia AM, de Aza AH, Pradies G. Radiopacity of zirconia-based all-ceramic crown systems. Int J Prosthodont. 2011;24:144-6.
• Pekkan G, Pekkan K, Hatipoglu MG, Tuna SH. Comparative radiopacity of ceramics and metals with human and bovine dental tissues. J Prosthet Dent. 2011;106:109-17.
• Kopuz D, Ercin O. The radiographic evaluation of 11 different resin composites. Odontology. 2024;112:428-34.
• Dukic W. Radiopacity of Composite Luting Cements Using a Digital Technique. J Prosthodont. 2019;28:E450-E9.
• Vyas A, Shah S, Patel N, Yagnik K, Yagnik K. Comparing radiopacity of nanohybrid composite and Giomers: an in vitro study. Unıversıty Journal Of Dental Scıences. 2022;8.
• Watts DC, McCabe JF. Aluminium radiopacity standards for dentistry: an international survey. J Dent. 1999;27:73-8.
• Chan DCN, Titus HW, Chung KH, Dixon H, Wellinghoff ST, Rawls HR. Radiopacity of tantalum oxide nanoparticle filled resins. Dent Mater. 1999;15:219-22.
• Atala MH, Atala N, Yegin E, Bayrak S. Comparison of radiopacity of current restorative CAD/CAM blocks with digital radiography. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2019;31:88-92.
• Pekkan G. Radiopacity of dental materials: An overview. AJDR. 2016;8:8.
• Lachowski KM, Botta SB, Lascala CA, Matosl AB, Sobral MAP. Study of the radio-opacity of base and liner dental materials using a digital radiography system. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2013;42:20120153.
• Hitij T, Fidler A. Radiopacity of dental restorative materials. Clin Oral Investig. 2013;17:1167-77.
• Espelid I, Tveit AB, Erickson RL, Keck SC, Glasspoole EA. Radiopacity of Restorations and Detection of Secondary Caries. Dent Mater. 1991;7:114-7.
• Cook WD. An investigation of the radiopacity of composite restorative materials. Aust Dent J. 1981;26:105-12.
• Lowe RA. OMNICHROMA: One Composite That Covers All Shades for an Anterior Tooth. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2019;40:8-10.
• Scotti N, Alovisi C, Comba A, Ventura G, Pasqualini D, Grignolo F, et al. Evaluation of Composite Adaptation to Pulpal Chamber Floor Using Optical Coherence Tomography. J Endod. 2016;42:160-3.
• Akerboom HB, Kreulen CM, van Amerongen WE, Mol A. Radiopacity of posterior composite resins, composite resin luting cements, and glass ionomer lining cements. J Prosthet Dent. 1993;70:351-5.
• Kuter B, Uzel I. Comparative radiopacity of pediatric dental restorative materials. Balk J Dent Med. 2022;26:47-51.
• Tsuge T, Kawashima S, Honda K, Koizumi H, Matsumura H, Hisamatsu N. Radiopacity of anterior and posterior restorative composites. Int Chin J Dent. 2008;8:49-52.
• Bouschlıcher M, Cobb D, Boyer D. Radiopacity of Compomers, Flow able Composites. Oper Dent. 1999:20.
• Attar N, Tam LE, McComb D. Flow, strength, stiffness and radiopacity of flowable resin composites. J Can Dent Assoc. 2003;69:516-21.
• Balci M, Turkun L, Boyacıoglu H, Guneri P, Ergucu Z. Radiopacity of posterior restorative materials: a comparative in vitro study. Oper Dent. 2023;48:337-46.
• Karadas M, Köse TE, Atıcı MG. Comparison of Radiopacity of Dentin Replacement Materials. J Dent Mater Tech. 2020;9:195-202.
• Prevost AP, Forest D, Tanguay R, Degrandmont P. Radiopacity of Glass Ionomer Dental Materials. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1990;70:231-5.
• Azarpazhooh A, Main PA. Is there a risk of harm or toxicity in the placement of pit and fissure sealant materials? A systematic review. J Can Dent Assoc. 2008;74:179-83.
• Elmowafy OM, Brown JW, Mccomb D. Radiopacity of Direct Ceramic Inlay Restoratives. J Dent. 1991;19:366-8.
• Tanomaru-Filho M, Jorge EG, Tanomaru JMG, Gonçalves M. Evaluation of the radiopacity of calcium hydroxide- and glass-ionomer-based root canal sealers. Int Endod J. 2008;41:50-3.
• Turgut MD, Attar N, Önen A. Radiopacity of direct esthetic restorative materials. Oper Dent. 2003;28:508-14.
• Nomoto R, Mishima A, Kobayashi K, McCabe JF, Darvell BW, Watts DC, et al. Quantitative determination of radio-opacity: Equivalence of digital and film X-ray systems. Dent Mater. 2008;24:141-7.
• Abreu M, Mol A, Ludlow JB. Performance of RVGui sensor and Kodak Ektaspeed Plus film for proximal caries detection. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2001;91:381-5.
• Hintze H, Wenzel A. Influence of the validation method on diagnostic accuracy for caries. A comparison of six digital and two conventional radiographic systems. Dentomaxillofac Rad. 2002;31:44-9.
• Gu S, Rasimick BJ, Deutsch AS, Musikant BL. Radiopacity of dental materials using a digital X-ray system. Dent Mater. 2006;22:765-70.