View in EDS

Is the radiopacity of CAD/CAM aesthetic materials sufficient?

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Is the radiopacity of CAD/CAM aesthetic materials sufficient?
Authors: Babaier, Rua S.1,2 (AUTHOR), Aldeeb, Modi S.2 (AUTHOR), Silikas, Nick1 (AUTHOR) nikolaos.silikas@manchester.ac.uk, Watts, David C.1,3 (AUTHOR) david.watts@manchester.ac.uk
Source: Dental Materials. Jun2022, Vol. 38 Issue 6, p1072-1081. 10p.
Subjects: Radiopacity, Dental materials, Digital images, Kruskal-Wallis Test, Aesthetics, Dental technology
Abstract: This study was designed to investigate CAD/CAM restorative blocks and other resin-based materials by (i) determining their chemical composition, (ii) comparing their radiopacity and (iii) correlating their radiopacity with specimen thickness. Disk specimens, of 1and 2 mm thickness (n = 3), were prepared from five CAD/CAM and six resin-based composites (RBCs). The CAD/CAM resin-composites included aesthetic types: CeraSmart (CS), Grandio Blocs (GB), Lava Ultimate (LU), plus a polymer infiltrated ceramic Vita Enamic (VE), and a feldspathic ceramic Vita Mark II (VM II). The six RBCs were for different clinical applications: direct filling, flowable, bulk fill, base and two luting cements. The specimens were radiographed alongside an aluminium step wedge and a tooth section. Digital images were analysed, and the radiopacity of each specimen was determined according to ISO 1311/2014. Statistical analyses of radiopacity, expressed as mm Al (n = 15), were carried out using the Kruskal-Wallis test followed by pairwise comparisons (α = 0.05). Radiopacities of CAD/CAM materials were, in ascending order, VE, VM II, CS, LU, and GB. At 1 mm thickness, the radiopacities of all CAD/CAM specimens were matching or slightly lower than enamel. At 2-mm thickness, the resin composite blocks were significantly more radiopaque than the ceramics VE and VM II (p < 0.0001). No statistically significant differences in radiopacity were detected between the 1-mm thick infiltrated ceramic, enamel, dentin and various resin composites except for filling and bulk fill types. The radiopacity of polymer-infiltrated ceramics was low despite the presence of radiopacifying elements and high filler content. Identifying thin restorations in standard radiographs is necessary with the development and expanded application of 'digital' dental materials in restorative treatment. This study confirmed the joint influence of composition and thickness on radiopacity. CAD/CAM restorative materials showed thickness-dependant radiopacity. But polymer-infiltrated ceramics were fairly radiolucent. There is a need to revisit radiopacity requirements for CAD/CAM restorative materials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Dental Materials is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Engineering Source
Description
Abstract:This study was designed to investigate CAD/CAM restorative blocks and other resin-based materials by (i) determining their chemical composition, (ii) comparing their radiopacity and (iii) correlating their radiopacity with specimen thickness. Disk specimens, of 1and 2 mm thickness (n = 3), were prepared from five CAD/CAM and six resin-based composites (RBCs). The CAD/CAM resin-composites included aesthetic types: CeraSmart (CS), Grandio Blocs (GB), Lava Ultimate (LU), plus a polymer infiltrated ceramic Vita Enamic (VE), and a feldspathic ceramic Vita Mark II (VM II). The six RBCs were for different clinical applications: direct filling, flowable, bulk fill, base and two luting cements. The specimens were radiographed alongside an aluminium step wedge and a tooth section. Digital images were analysed, and the radiopacity of each specimen was determined according to ISO 1311/2014. Statistical analyses of radiopacity, expressed as mm Al (n = 15), were carried out using the Kruskal-Wallis test followed by pairwise comparisons (α = 0.05). Radiopacities of CAD/CAM materials were, in ascending order, VE, VM II, CS, LU, and GB. At 1 mm thickness, the radiopacities of all CAD/CAM specimens were matching or slightly lower than enamel. At 2-mm thickness, the resin composite blocks were significantly more radiopaque than the ceramics VE and VM II (p < 0.0001). No statistically significant differences in radiopacity were detected between the 1-mm thick infiltrated ceramic, enamel, dentin and various resin composites except for filling and bulk fill types. The radiopacity of polymer-infiltrated ceramics was low despite the presence of radiopacifying elements and high filler content. Identifying thin restorations in standard radiographs is necessary with the development and expanded application of 'digital' dental materials in restorative treatment. This study confirmed the joint influence of composition and thickness on radiopacity. CAD/CAM restorative materials showed thickness-dependant radiopacity. But polymer-infiltrated ceramics were fairly radiolucent. There is a need to revisit radiopacity requirements for CAD/CAM restorative materials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:01095641
DOI:10.1016/j.dental.2022.04.025