Journal of applied biomaterials & functional materials · 2026
Comparison of the radiopacity of pulp capping materials.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Sagmak Savas, Akol Gorgun Esin, Ozel Emre
Аннотация
BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare the radiopacity of pulp capping materials with that of dental hard tissues. In this study, the radiopacity of traditional and contemporary pulp capping materials was examined and compared with that of dental hard tissues and an aluminum step wedge.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight pulp capping materials were used in the study. Ten disk-shaped specimens, each 1 mm thick and 5 mm in diameter, were prepared from each material. Ten specimens from each material were placed on a photostimulable phosphor (PSP) plate system together with a tooth slice and the aluminum stepwedge. The images were analyzed with a software program (Adobe Photoshop) to measure mean gray values (MGVs). A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine whether there were significant differences among the groups. Tukey's test was applied for pairwise comparisons (p < 0.05).
RESULTS: All materials used in the study showed greater radiopacity than dentin. BiOfactor, Dycal, MTA Angelus, ProRoot MTA were more radiopaque than enamel, while the other materials showed lower radiopacity than enamel. The radiopacity values of the materials were found as follows: Dentin < MTA CEM LC < Calcimol LC < Biodentin < TheraCal LC < Enamel < Dycal < BiOfactor < MTA Angelus < ProRoot MTA.
CONCLUSION: The materials examined were found to be more radiopaque than dentin. This may allow a more objective evaluation in radiographic examinations. However, in radiographic images in which enamel is superimposed, materials that do not exhibit greater radiopacity than enamel may complicate radiographic assessment.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight pulp capping materials were used in the study. Ten disk-shaped specimens, each 1 mm thick and 5 mm in diameter, were prepared from each material. Ten specimens from each material were placed on a photostimulable phosphor (PSP) plate system together with a tooth slice and the aluminum stepwedge. The images were analyzed with a software program (Adobe Photoshop) to measure mean gray values (MGVs). A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine whether there were significant differences among the groups. Tukey's test was applied for pairwise comparisons (p < 0.05).
RESULTS: All materials used in the study showed greater radiopacity than dentin. BiOfactor, Dycal, MTA Angelus, ProRoot MTA were more radiopaque than enamel, while the other materials showed lower radiopacity than enamel. The radiopacity values of the materials were found as follows: Dentin < MTA CEM LC < Calcimol LC < Biodentin < TheraCal LC < Enamel < Dycal < BiOfactor < MTA Angelus < ProRoot MTA.
CONCLUSION: The materials examined were found to be more radiopaque than dentin. This may allow a more objective evaluation in radiographic examinations. However, in radiographic images in which enamel is superimposed, materials that do not exhibit greater radiopacity than enamel may complicate radiographic assessment.