Güncel Farklı Pulpa Kaplama Materyallerinin Radyoopasitesi: In Vitro Karşılaştırmalı Bir Çalışma

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, farklı pulpa kaplama materyallerinin radyoopasitesini dijital radyografik görüntüleme kullanarak karşılaştırmaktır.

Gereç ve Yöntemler: Sekiz farklı pulpa kaplama materyali değerlendirildi (her grup için n = 10). Her bir materyal için 1 mm kalınlığında ve 5 mm çapında standart disk örnekleri hazırlandı. Radyografik görüntüler, standartlaştırılmış ışınlama koşulları altında 21 basamaklı alüminyum step-wedge ve mine-dentin örneği ile birlikte dijital fosfor sistemi kullanılarak elde edildi. Görüntülerden elde edilen ortalama gri değerleri milimetre alüminyum (mm Al) eşdeğerlerine dönüştürüldü. İstatistiksel analizler tek yönlü ANOVA ve ardından Tukey post hoc testi kullanılarak gerçekleştirildi (α = 0,05).

Bulgular: Radyoopasite değerleri 1,911 ± 0,090 ile 6,164 ± 0,312 mm Al arasında değişti ve materyaller arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı farklılıklar bulundu (p<0,001). ProRoot MTA en yüksek radyoopasiteyi gösterirken, TheraCal LC en düşük değeri sergiledi. Materyallerin çoğu ISO tarafından önerilen radyoopasite eşiğini (≥3 mm Al) karşıladı; ancak TheraCal LC, ApaCal ART ve MTA Cem LC bu seviyenin altında kaldı.

Sonuç: Pulpa kaplama materyallerinin radyoopasitesi materyal kompozisyonuna bağlı olarak önemli ölçüde değişiklik göstermektedir. Yetersiz radyoopasitenin radyografik olarak ayırt edilebilirliği zorlaştırabileceği göz önünde bulundurulduğunda, pulpa kaplama materyallerinin seçiminde biyolojik ve kullanım özelliklerinin yanı sıra radyoopasite özelliği de dikkate alınmalıdır.

Keywords

• Pulpa kaplama materyalleri
• radyoopasite
• kalsiyum silikat
• dijital radyografi
• ortalama gri değer

Ethical Statement

Bu çalışma, Lokman Hekim Üniversitesi Bilimsel Araştırma Etik Kurulu tarafından onaylanmıştır (Onay No: 2025/299).

Radiopacity of Different Contemporary Pulp Capping Materials: An In Vitro Comparative Study

Abstract

Aim: This study aimed to compare the radiopacity of different pulp capping materials using digital radiographic imaging.

Material and Methods: Eight different pulp capping materials were evaluated (n = 10 per group). Standardized disc specimens with a thickness of 1 mm and a diameter of 5 mm were prepared for each material. Radiographic images were obtained using a digital photostimulable phosphor system together with a 21-step aluminum step wedge and an enamel–dentin sample under standardized exposure conditions. The mean gray values obtained from the images were converted into millimeter aluminum (mm Al) equivalents. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s post hoc test (α = 0.05).

Results: Radiopacity values ranged from 1.911 ± 0.090 to 6.164 ± 0.312 mm Al, with significant differences among the materials (p<0.001). ProRoot MTA showed the highest radiopacity, whereas TheraCal LC exhibited the lowest values. Most materials met the ISO-recommended radiopacity threshold (≥3 mm Al); however, TheraCal LC, ApaCal ART, and MTA Cem LC remained below this level.

Conclusion: The radiopacity of pulp capping materials varies considerably depending on material composition. Because insufficient radiopacity may hinder radiographic detectability, this property should be considered alongside biological and handling characteristics when selecting pulp capping materials for clinical use.

Keywords

• Pulp capping materials
• radiopacity
• calcium silicate
• digital radiography
• mean gray value

Ethical Statement

This study was approved by the Lokman Hekim University Scientific Research Ethics Committee (Approval No: 2025/299).

References

1. Kahler B, Taha NA, Lu J, Saoud TM. Vital pulp therapy for permanent teeth with diagnosis of irreversible pulpitis: biological basis and outcome. Aust Dent J. 2023;68(Suppl 1):S110-22. doi:10.1111/adj.12997.
2. Coll JA, Dhar V, Guelmann M, Crystal YO, Chen CY, Marghalani AA, et al. Vital pulp therapy in permanent teeth: a systematic review and meta-analyses. Pediatr Dent. 2025;47(3):137-50.
3. Çölkesen D, Kuran A, Tekçe N. Evaluation of the radiopacity of different universal composite resins aged by thermocycling. Odontology. 2026;114(3):1615-28. doi:10.1007/s10266-025-01226-x.
4. Gu S, Rasimick BJ, Deutsch AS, Musikant BL. Radiopacity of dental materials using a digital X-ray system. Dent Mater. 2006;22(8):765-70. doi:10.1016/j.dental.2005.11.004.
5. American National Standards Institute/American Dental Association. ANSI/ADA Standard No. 57-2021: endodontic sealing materials. Chicago: American Dental Association; 2021.
6. International Organization for Standardization. ISO 6876:2012. Dentistry—root canal sealing materials. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization; 2012.
7. International Organization for Standardization. ISO 13116:2014. Dentistry—test method for determining radio-opacity of materials. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization; 2014.
8. Akbiyik SY, Bakir EP, Bakir S. Evaluation of the bond strength of different pulp capping materials to dental adhesive systems: an in vitro study. Journal of Advanced Oral Research. 2021;12(2):286-95. doi:10.1177/2320206821997983.

9. Sanz JL, Soler-Doria A, López-García S, García-Bernal D, Rodríguez-Lozano FJ, Lozano A, et al. Comparative biological properties and mineralization potential of 3 endodontic materials for vital pulp therapy: Theracal PT, Theracal LC, and Biodentine on human dental pulp stem cells. J Endod. 2021;47(12):1896-906. doi:10.1016/j.joen.2021.08.001.
10. Tanalp J, Karapınar-Kazandağ M, Dölekoğlu S, Kayahan MB. Comparison of the radiopacities of different root-end filling and repair materials. ScientificWorldJournal. 2013;2013:594950. doi:10.1155/2013/594950.
11. Altınok Uygun L, Sözen E. Evaluation of the radiopacity of pulp capping materials. NEU Dent J. 2024;6(3):324-35. doi:10.51122/neudentj.2025.132.
12. Sen HG, Helvacioglu-Yigit D, Yilmaz A. Radiopacity evaluation of calcium silicate cements. BMC Oral Health. 2023;23(1):491. doi:10.1186/s12903-023-03182-w.
13. Lachowski KM, Botta SB, Lascala CA, Matos AB, Sobral MAP. Study of the radio-opacity of base and liner dental materials using a digital radiography system. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2013;42(2):20120153. doi:10.1259/dmfr.20120153.
14. Kopuz D, Erçin Ö. The radiographic evaluation of 11 different resin composites. Odontology. 2024;112(2):428-34. doi:10.1007/s10266-023-00854-5.
15. Tarcin B, Gumru B, Peker S, Ovecoglu HS. Evaluation of radiopacity of bulk-fill flowable composites using digital radiography. Oper Dent. 2016;41(4):424-31. doi:10.2341/15-153-L.
16. Şeşen Uslu Y, Çelebi E, Berkman M. Radiopacity evaluations of the novel calcium-silicate and glass-ionomer-based materials. J Health Sci Med. 2024;7(2):192-8. doi:10.32322/jhsm.1438664.
17. Łuczaj-Cepowicz E, Marczuk-Kolada G, Pawińska M, Różycki J, Chorzewska E. Comparison of the radiopacity of selected materials used for vital pulp therapy: an in vitro assessment. Dent Med Probl. 2019;56(3):285-90. doi:10.17219/dmp/109550.
18. Kaup M, Schäfer E, Dammaschke T. An in vitro study of different material properties of Biodentine compared to ProRoot MTA. Head Face Med. 2015;11:16. doi:10.1186/s13005-015-0074-9.
19. Pekkan G. Radiopacity of dental materials: an overview. Avicenna J Dent Res. 2016;8(2):e36847. doi:10.17795/ajdr-36847.
20. Candeiro GTM, Correia FC, Duarte MAH, Ribeiro-Siqueira DC, Gavini G. Evaluation of radiopacity, pH, release of calcium ions, and flow of a bioceramic root canal sealer. J Endod. 2012;38(6):842-5. doi:10.1016/j.joen.2012.02.029.
21. Yaylacı A, Karaarslan ES, Hatırlı H. Evaluation of the radiopacity of restorative materials with different structures and thicknesses using a digital radiography system. Imaging Sci Dent. 2021;51(3):261-9. doi:10.5624/isd.20200334.