Warning: mkdir(): Permission denied in /home/virtual/lib/view_data.php on line 81

Warning: fopen(upload/ip_log/ip_log_2024-12.txt): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/virtual/lib/view_data.php on line 83

Warning: fwrite() expects parameter 1 to be resource, boolean given in /home/virtual/lib/view_data.php on line 84
Evaluation of radiopacity and discriminability of various fiber reinforced composite posts


Your browser does not support the NLM PubReader view.

Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.

Evaluation of radiopacity and discriminability of various fiber reinforced composite posts

Article information

Restor Dent Endod. 2010;35(3):188-197
Publication date (electronic) : 2010 May 31
doi : https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2010.35.3.188
Eun-Hye Lee1, Hang-Moon Choi2, Se-Hee Park1, Jin-Woo Kim1, Kyung-Mo Cho1
1Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Gangneung-Wonju National University, Gangneung, Korea.
2Department of Oral and maxillofacial radiology, College of Dentistry, Gangneung-Wonju National University, Gangneung, Korea.
Correspondence to: Kyung-Mo Cho. Department of Conservative Dentistry College of Dentistry, Gangneung-Wonju National University 123 Chibyon-dong Gangwon-do, 210-702, Korea. Tel: 82-33-640-2467, Fax: 82-33-642-6410, drbozon@gwnu.ac.kr
Received 2010 April 19; Revised 2010 April 23; Accepted 2010 April 27.

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare radiopacity and radiographic discriminability of various FRC-Posts.

Six FRC-Posts were investigated ; 1) FRC Postec Plus (Ivoclar Vivadent AG, Schaan, Liechtenstein), 2) Snowlight (Carbotech, Lewis center, OH, USA), 3) Dentin Post (Komet Brasseler, Lamgo, Germany), 4) Rely-X Fiber Post (3M ESPE, St.paul, MN, USA), 5) D.T.-Light Post (BISCO, Schaumburg, IL,USA), 6) Luxapost (DMG, Hamburg, Germany)

The radiographs of each post with a reference 1 mm / 2 mm aluminum step-wedge was taken using digital sensor. The optical density were calculated by gray value of 10 × 10 pixel and compared in mm Al equivalent at five points.

Six maxillary incisors of similar radiopacity were used. Radiographs of posts in Mx. incisors of lingual side of dry mandible were taken.

We showed radiographs and asked the questionnaire to 3 radiologists, 3 endodontists, 3 general practitioners. The questionnaire was comprised of choices of the highest, lowest radiopaque individual post and the choices of best discriminable post at apical, coronal area.

The following results were obtained.

  1. Each post system showed various radiopacity.

  2. There was change of discriminability between each post and simulated specimens regardless of examiner.

Although each post showed various radiopacity, the difference of radiopacity did not affect on discriminability.

Keywords: Radiopacity; FRC-post; Discriminability; Digital sensor; Aluminum step-wedge; mm Al equivalent

References

1. Elíasson ST, Haasken B. Radiopacity of impression materials. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1979. 47(5)485–491.
2. International Standards Organization. Dentistry-polymer-based filling, restorative and luting materials 2000. 3rd Edth ed. ISO 4049.
3. O'Rourke B, Walls AWG, Wassell RW. Radiographic detection overhangs formed by resin composite luting agents. J Dent 1995. 23(6)353–357.
4. Soares CJ, Mistsui FHO, Neto FH, Marchi GMM, Martins LRM. Radiodensity evaluation of seven root post systems. Am J Dent 2005. 18(1)57–60.
5. Rasimick BJ, Steven G, Allan SD, Barry LM. Measuring the radiopacity of luting cements, dowels, and core build-up materials with a digital radiography system using a CCD sensor. J Prosthodont 2007. 16(5)357–364.
6. Ibrahim H, El-Mowafy O, Brown JW. Radiopacity of nonmetallic root canal posts. Int J Prosthodont 2006. 19(1)101–102.
7. Finger WJ, Ahlstrand WM, Fritz UB. Radiopacity of fiber-reinforced resin posts. Am J Dent 2002. 15(2)81–84.
8. Bouschlicher MR, Cobb DS, Boyer DB. Radiopacity of compomers, flowable and conventional resin composites for posterior restorations. Oper Dent 1999. 24(1)20–25.
9. Schwartz RS, Robbins JW. Post placement and restoration of endodontically treated teeth: A literature review. J Endod 2004. 30(5)289–301.
10. Goracci C, Gorciolani G, Vichi A, Ferrari M. Light-transmitting ability of marketed fiber posts. J Dent Res 2008. 87(12)1122–1126.
11. Al-Hazaimeh N, Gutteridge DL. An in vitro study into the effect of the ferrule preparation on the fracture resistance of crowned teeth incorporating prefabricated post and composite core restorations. Int Endod J 2001. 34(1)40–46.
12. Akkayan B. An in vitro study evaluating the effect of ferrule length on fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with fiber-reinforced and zirconia dowel systems. J Prosthet Dent 2004. 92(2)155–162.
13. Naumann M, Preuss A, Frankenberger R. Reinforcement effect of adhesively luted fiber reinforced composite versus titanium posts. Dent Mater 2007. 23(2)138–144.
14. Shah PMM, Sidhu SK, Chong BS, Pitt Ford TR. Radiopacity of resin-modified glass ionomer liners and bases. J Prosthet Dent 1997. 77(3)239–242.
15. Marouf N, Sidhu SK. A study on the radiopacity of different shades of resin-modified glass-ionomer restorative materials. Oper Dent 1998. 23(1)10–14.
16. Akerboom HBM, Kreulen CM, Amerongen WE, Mol A. Radiopacity of posterior composite resins, composite resin luting cements, and glass ionomer lining cements. J Prosthet Dent 1993. 70(4)351–355.
17. Turgut MD, Attar N, Onen A. Radiopacity of direct esthetic restorative materials. Oper Dent 2003. 28(5)508–514.
18. 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.
19. Rasimick BJ, Shah RP, Musikant BL, Deutsch AS. Radiopacity of endodontic materials on film and a digital sensor. J Endod 2007. 33(9)1098–1101.
20. Tagger M, Katz A. Radiopacity of endodontic sealers: development of a new method for direct measurement. J Endod 2003. 29(11)751–755.
21. Yoshiura K, Kawazu T, Chikui T. Assessment of image quality in dental radiographypart 1. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1999. 87(1)115–122.
22. Carvalho-Junior JR, Correr-Sobrinho L, Correr AB, Sinhoreti MA, Consani S, Sousa-Neto MD. Radiopacity of root filling materials using digital radiography. Int Endod J 2007. 40(7)514–520.
23. Sabbagh J, Vreven J, Leloup G. Radiopacity of resin based materials measured in film radiographs and storage phosphor plate. Oper Dent 2004. 29(6)677–684.
24. Kim HJ, Kim SK. Radiopacity comparison of tooth colored restorative materials with digital radigraphy. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent 2000. 25(4)499–508.
25. Kleier DJ, Shibilski K, Averbach RE. Radiographic appearance of titanium posts in endodontically treated teeth. J Endod 1999. 25(2)128–131.
26. Tagger M, Katz A. Radiopacity of endodontic sealers development of a new method for direct measurement. J Endod 2003. 29(11)751–755.
27. Tasdemir T, Yesilyurt C, Yildirim T, Er K. Evaluation of the radiopacity of new root canal paste/sealers by digital radiography. J Endod 2008. 34(11)1388–1390.
28. Baksi BG, Sen BH, Eyuboglu TF. Differences in aluminum equivalent values of endodontic sealers: conventional versus digital radiography. J Endod 2008. 34(9)1101–1104.
29. Kim CK, Ryu HW, Chang HS, Lee BD, Min KS, Hong CU. Evaluation of the radiopacity and cytotoxicity of resinous root canal sealers. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent 2007. 32(5)419–425.
30. Kim TM, Kim SK, Hwang IN, Hwang YC, Kang BC, Yoon SJ, Lee JS, Oh WM. A comparative study on radipacity of root canal sealers. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent 2009. 34(1)61–68.
31. Rud J, Rud V, Munksgaard EC. Retrograde root filling with dentin-bonded modified resin composite. J Endod 1996. 22(9)477–480.
32. Niederman R, Theodosopoulou JN. A systematic review of in vivo retrograde obturation materials. Int Endod J 2003. 36(9)577–585.

Article information Continued

Copyright © 2010 Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry

Figure 1

Figure 1

Aluminum step-wedge. a. 1 mm step, b. 2 mm step.

Figure 2

Figure 2

Radiographic image of post with aluminum step-wedge.

Figure 3

Figure 3

Measuring point of post.

1. Apex of post

2. 4 mm to apex of post

3. 7 mm to apex of post

4. Point of inclination change

5. 10 mm to apex of post

Figure 4

Figure 4

Radiographic image of posts.

Figure 5

Figure 5

Radiographic images of simulated specimens.

Figure 6

Figure 6

Questionnaire.

Figure 7

Figure 7

Absorbance of aluminum thickness.

Table 1

Composition of FRC-Post

Table 1

Table 2

The value of radiopacity at each measuring point of post (absorbance/mm post)

Table 2

Table 3

The value of radiopacity at each measuring point of post (mm Al/mm post)

Table 3

Table 4

The value of radiographic images of simulated specimens (absorbance)

Table 4

Table 5

Difference of radiopacity between dentin and post at apical area (absorbance)

Table 5

Table 6

Difference of radiopacity between dentin and post at coronal area (absorbance)

Table 6

Table 7

The percentage of correct answers in radiographic image of post (%)

Table 7

Table 8

The percentage of correct answers in radiographic image of simulated specimens (%)

Table 8