International endodontic journal · 2000
Comparative radiopacity of tetracalcium phosphate and other root-end filling materials.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Laghios C D, Benson B W, Gutmann J L, Cutler C W
Аннотация
AIM: This study compared the radiopacity of tetracalcium phosphate (TTCP) and 11 root-end filling materials relative to human dentine.
METHODOLOGY: Specimens of 2 mm thickness and a graduated aluminium stepwedge were placed on dental X-ray films and exposed to an X-ray beam. The optical densities of the specimens and aluminium steps were measured. The optical densities of the specimens were correlated to the equivalent thickness of aluminium with a regression analysis equation. The equation was used to calculate the equivalent aluminium thickness of each of the specimens.
RESULTS: Nine of the materials were found to be of acceptable radiopacity (at least 2 mm Al more radiopaque than dentine). TCCP and two of the glass-ionomer compounds were found to have insufficient radiopacity to be radiographically distinguishable from human dentine.
CONCLUSIONS: All the materials were found to be distinguishable radiographically from dentine, except for Vitrebond, TTCP and Ketac-Fil. Amalgam was the most radiopaque material and Ketac-Fil was the least radiopaque material tested.
METHODOLOGY: Specimens of 2 mm thickness and a graduated aluminium stepwedge were placed on dental X-ray films and exposed to an X-ray beam. The optical densities of the specimens and aluminium steps were measured. The optical densities of the specimens were correlated to the equivalent thickness of aluminium with a regression analysis equation. The equation was used to calculate the equivalent aluminium thickness of each of the specimens.
RESULTS: Nine of the materials were found to be of acceptable radiopacity (at least 2 mm Al more radiopaque than dentine). TCCP and two of the glass-ionomer compounds were found to have insufficient radiopacity to be radiographically distinguishable from human dentine.
CONCLUSIONS: All the materials were found to be distinguishable radiographically from dentine, except for Vitrebond, TTCP and Ketac-Fil. Amalgam was the most radiopaque material and Ketac-Fil was the least radiopaque material tested.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Absorptiometry, PhotonAluminumAluminum CompoundsBismuthCalcium CompoundsCalcium PhosphatesContrast MediaDental AmalgamDentinDrug CombinationsGlass Ionomer CementsGutta-PerchaHumansMaleatesOxidesPolyvinylsRadiography, DentalRegression AnalysisRetrograde ObturationRoot Canal Filling MaterialsSilicatesZinc OxideZinc Oxide-Eugenol Cement