Journal of Conservative Dentistry
Home About us Editorial Board Instructions Submission Subscribe Advertise Contact e-Alerts Login 
Users Online: 29
Print this page  Email this page Bookmark this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
Year : 2017  |  Volume : 20  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 17-20

Comparison of radiopacity of different composite resins

1 Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Atatürk University, Erzurum, Turkey
2 Department of Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Atatürk University, Erzurum, Turkey

Correspondence Address:
Pinar Gul
Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Ataturk University, TR-25240, Erzurum
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.209071

Rights and Permissions

Background: The radiopacity of composite resins has been considered as an important requirement, improving the radiographic diagnosis. Aim: The present study aimed to compare the radiopacity of eight different composite materials using an aluminum step wedge. Materials and Methods: Eight different composite resins were used in this study. The samples were prepared using a stainless steel mold (2×8), and a 2-mm-thickness horizontal section was obtained from the freshly extracted molar tooth. Three different radiographs were taken by establishing standard conditions. Mean gray values were obtained by taking three measurements from each step of both the tooth and the aluminum step wedge, and the aluminum thickness equivalents were calculated. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way variance analysis and Tukey's test(P<0.05). Results: All aluminum thickness equivalents were found to be higher than those of the enamel and dentin, except Clearfil Majesty Esthetic(2.23mm±0.52mm) and Filtek Silorane(3.67mm±0.15mm)(P<0.05). The Clearfil Majesty Posterior (8.50mm±0.10mm) and Arabesk Top(8.17mm±0.06mm) were found to be the most radiopaque composites. Conclusion: All composite resin materials tested in this study were confirmed to the International Standards Organization 4049 standards. However, since radiopacity is not the only criterion for clinical use, it is a better approach to take all other properties of the materials into consideration.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded234    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 4    

Recommend this journal