Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 2, 2025
Quasistatic Mechanical Testing for Computer-Aided Design and Manufacturing Occlusal Veneers Cemented to Milled Dentin Analog Material
Published on: December 20, 2024
Radiopacity of Posterior Restorative Materials: A Comparative In Vitro Study
M Balci1, L S Turkun2, H Boyacıoglu3
1Melin Balci, DDS, PhD, Ege University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Bornove, Izmir, Turkey.
Background:
The objective was to investigate the radiopacity of 11 commercial posterior restorative materials by establishing their mean gray values (MGVs) and comparing them with dental hard tissues.
Methods And Materials:
Five-disc specimens were prepared for each of the following materials: Cerasmart 270 CAD/CAM block A3LT (CS), Amalgam (A), Ketac Molar A3 (KM), Cention-N A2 (CN), G-aenial Universal Flo AO2 (GO2) and A2 (G2), Ever-X Flow Dentine (EXD) and Bulk (EXB) shades, Equia Forte HT Fil A2 (EF2) and A3 (EF3), and Equia Fil A3 (E3). Freshly extracted maxillary premolar teeth were used as a control. The MGVs of specimens and a 10-step aluminum stepwedge (Al) were measured with Adobe Photoshop. ANOVA and Dunnett T3 tests were used to assess the significance of the differences (α=0.05).
Results:
Statistically significant differences were revealed between some of the groups. Amalgam had the highest radiopacity. The radiopacity of dentin and CS were close to that of 1 mm Al. G2, KM, GO2, EXB, and EXD showed higher mean radiopacity than dentin. Enamel had a radiopacity equivalent to 2 mm Al. CN, EF2, and E3 had higher mean radiopacity than enamel.
Conclusions:
All materials met the ISO requirements. Alkasite and reinforced glass ionomer restoratives demonstrated higher mean radiopacity than the posterior flowable composites. Material shades did not affect the radiopacity.
