Article

Comparison of conventional and digital radiography systems with regard to radiopacity of root canal filling materials.

Department of Endodontics, School of Dentistry Ege University, Bornova, Izmir, Turkey.
International Endodontic Journal (Impact Factor: 2.27). 03/2012; 45(8):730-6. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2012.02026.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To compare the radiopacity of five root filling materials as measured on digitized E-speed films, storage phosphor plate and CCD sensor images.
Radiopacity of Resilon cones and Epiphany, MM-Seal, EndoREZ and AH Plus sealers were investigated. Ten acrylic plates were prepared and filled with the materials. Samples were radiographed together with samples of dentine and an aluminium stepwedge. Images were obtained using E-speed films, Digora storage phosphor plates and Schick CDR CCD sensor. Conventional radiographs were digitized using a desktop scanner. Mean grey values of the materials, stepwedge and dentine were measured using the histogram analysis function of Photoshop 7.0. A graph of radiographic density versus thickness of the aluminium was drawn for each image from which the radiographic densities of the materials were determined in relation to the aluminium thickness. The mean was calculated, and the data were analysed using repeated measures anova and Bonferroni tests (P<0.05).
There were significant differences between different imaging modalities (P=0.018) and root filling materials (P<0.001). A statistically significant interaction between imaging modality and material was also observed (P<0.001). All materials had radiopacity above 3mm of aluminium regardless of the imaging technique. The radiopacity of Resilon and Epiphany was significantly higher on digital images compared with digitized E-speed film images (P<0.001).
The choice of imaging system may effect radiopacity measurements. It is possible that radiopacity as recorded on traditional or digitized films is not indicative of the radiopacity as recorded on a digital sensor.

Full-text

Available from: Ilgin Akcay, Jul 03, 2014
1 Follower
 · 
119 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives: To evaluate a new method for assessing the radiopacity endodontic sealers and to compare radiopacity values with a well-established standard method. Methods: The sealers evaluated in this study were AH Plus, Endo CPM Sealer and MTA Fillapex. Two methods were used to evaluate radiopacity: (D) standard discs; and (S) a tissue simulator. For (D), 10 standards discs were prepared for each sealer and were radiographed using Digora phosphor storage plates, alongside an aluminium stepwedge. For (S), polyethylene tubes filled with sealer (n=10 for each) were radiographed inside the simulator as described. The digital images were analysed using Adobe Photoshop® software. To compare the radiopacity among the sealers, the data were analysed by ANOVA and Tukey's test, and to compare methods, they were analysed by the Mann-Whitney test. To compare the data obtained from dentin and sealers in method (S), Student's paired t test was used (=0.05). Results: In both methods, the sealers showed significant differences, according to the following decreasing order: AH Plus, MTA Fillapex and Endo CPM. In (D), MTA Fillapex and Endo CPM showed less radiopacity than aluminium. For all of the materials, the radiopacity was higher in (S) than in (D). Compared to dentin, all of the materials were more radiopaque. Conclusion: The comparison of the two assessment methods for sealer radiopacity testing validated the use of a tissue simulator block.
    Dento-maxillo-facial radiology. Supplement 02/2015; 44(5):20140422. DOI:10.1259/dmfr.20140422
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to evaluate the radiopacity of different composite resins and compare the values to those of human enamel and dentine.
    European journal of dentistry 07/2014; 8(3):342-7. DOI:10.4103/1305-7456.137644
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction: The aim of the study was to compare the diagnostic ability to radiographically detect separated stainless steel (SS) versus nickel-titanium (NiTi) instruments located at the apical third of filled root canals with either AH 26 (Dentsply DeTrey GmbH, Konstanz, Germany) or Roth sealer (Roth International Ltd, Chicago, IL). Methods: Sixty single-rooted extracted human teeth with 1 straight root canal were instrumented to a size 25 apical diameter. In 40 teeth, apical 2-mm segments of SS (n = 20) or NiTi (n = 20) files were intentionally fractured in the apical part of the root canal. The remaining 20 teeth without fractured files served as a control group. Subsequently, the root canals were filled using laterally condensed guttapercha and either AH 26 sealer (AH) or Roth sealer (Roth). All teeth were radiographed using conventional Kodak film (Eastman Kodak Co, Rochester, NY) and a charge-coupled device digital sensor. The evaluation of the images for the presence of a fractured instrument was performed independently by 2 blinded observers. The data were statistically analyzed using McNemar and Fisher exact tests. Results: The kappa values were 0.76 and 0.615 for the first and second observers, respectively, and 0.584 between the observers. There were no significant differences in the diagnostic ability between digital and conventional radiography or the different root canal sealers (AH vs Roth, P > .05). The sensitivity to detect fractured SS was significantly higher than NiTi (P < .05). Conclusions: It may be difficult to radiographically detect a retained separated instrument. It is easier to radiographically detect fractured SS than NiTi instruments retained at the apical third of the root canal.
    Journal of Endodontics 08/2014; 40(10). DOI:10.1016/j.joen.2014.07.005 · 2.79 Impact Factor