Clinical Oral Investigations

, Volume 11, Issue 4, pp 331–336

In vitro analysis of the radiodensity of indirect composites and ceramic inlay systems and its influence on the detection of cement overhangs

  • Carlos José Soares
  • Fernanda Ribeiro Santana
  • Rodrigo Borges Fonseca
  • Luis Roberto Marcondes Martins
  • Francisco Haiter Neto
Original Article

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the radiodensity of indirect restorative systems and to determine its influence on detection of resin cement overhangs. Sixty sound molars with similar dimensions were selected, and MOD inlay preparations were made in a standardized fashion with 6° taper of the walls. Restorations were made with a porcelain, Duceram LFC, and with three indirect composites, Solidex, Artglass, and Targis. Digital radiographic images were taken before and after cementation of the inlays (Digora system) and were analyzed on two regions, the cervical and the isthmus floor. Digital radiodensity measurements were performed on standardized points symmetrically distributed over each restoration and tooth structure. Cement overhangs were detected through visual analysis by three evaluators. Data were statistically analyzed utilizing ANOVA following Tukey’s test (p < 0.05), showing that Solidex presented lower radiodensity than Duceram LFC, and both Artglass and Targis presented similar higher levels of radiodensity than the other groups. Radiodensity of cervical regions was always greater than for isthmus floor regions. Detection of the resin cement overhangs is easier observed on Solidex and Duceram LFC. Radiodensity is highly influenced by restorative material type and tooth regions. The detection of radiopaque resin cement overhangs is influenced by radiodensity of restorative materials.

Keywords

Radiodensity Porcelain Indirect composite resins Resin cement Digital radiographs 

References

  1. 1.
    Arnetzl GV, Arnetzl G (2006) Design of preparations for all-ceramic inlay materials. Int J Comput Dent 9:289–298PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bouschlicher MR, Cobb DS, Boyer DB (1999) Radiopacity of compomers, flowable and conventional resin composites for posterior restorations. Oper Dent 24:20–25PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Curtis PM Jr, von Fraunhofer JA, Farman AG (1990) The radiographic density of composite restorative resins. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 70:226–230PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dietschi D, Maeder M, Holz J (1992) In vitro evaluation of marginal fit and morphology of fired ceramic inlays. Quintessence Int 23:271–278PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Espelid I, Tveit AB, Erickson RL, Keck SC, Glasspoole EA (1991) Radiopacity of restorations and detection of secondary caries. Dent Mater 7:114–117PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Farman TT, Farman AG, Scarfe WC, Goldsmith LJ (1996) Optical densities of dental resin composites: a comparison of CCD, storage phosphor, and Ektaspeed plus radiographic film. Gen Dent 44:532–537PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fonseca RB, Branco CA, Soares PV, Correr-Sobrinho L, Haiter-Neto F, Fernandes-Neto AJ, Soares CJ (2006) Radiodensity of base, liner and luting dental materials. Clin Oral Investig 10:114–118PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fraga RC, Luca-Fraga LR, Pimenta LA (2000) Physical properties of resinous cements: an in vitro study. J Oral Rehabil 27:1064–1067PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gemalmaz D, Ozcan M, Yoruc AB, Alkumru HN (1997) Marginal adaptation of a sintered ceramic inlay system before and after cementation. J Oral Rehabil 24:646–651PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goshima T, Goshima Y (1989) The optimum level of radiopacity in posterior composite resins. Dentomaxillofacial Radiol 18:19–21Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gu XH, Kern M (2003) Marginal discrepancies and leakage of all-ceramic crowns: influence of luting agents and aging conditions. Int J Prosthodont 16:109–116PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Inokoshi S, Van Meerbeek B, Willems G, Lambrechts P, Braem M, Vanherle G (1992) Marginal accuracy of CAD/CAM inlays made with the original and the updated software. J Dent 20:171–177PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kreulen CM, van Amerongen WE, Borgmeijer PJ, Akerboom HB, Gruythuysen RJ (1994) Radiographic assessments of class II resin composite inlays. ASDC J Dent Child 61:192–198PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Molin MK, Karlsson SL (2000) A randomized 5-year clinical evaluation of 3 ceramic inlay systems. Int J Prosthodont 13:194–200PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    O’Rourke B, Walls AW, Wassell RW (1995) Radiographic detection of overhangs formed by resin composite luting agents. J Dent 23:353–357PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Otto T, De Nisco S (2002) Computer-aided direct ceramic restorations: a 10-year prospective clinical study of Cerec CAD/CAM inlays and onlays. Int J Prosthodont 15:122–128PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Soares CJ, Martins LR, Fernandes Neto AJ, Giannini M (2003) Marginal adaptation of indirect composites and ceramic inlay systems. Oper Dent 28:689–694PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stanford CM, Fan PL, Schoenfeld CM, Knoeppel R, Stanford JW (1987) Radiopacity of light-cured posterior composite resins. J Am Dent Assoc 115:722–724PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Touati B, Aidan N (1997) Second generation laboratory composite resins for indirect restorations. J Esthet Dent 9:108–118PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Touati B (1996) The evolution of aesthetic restorative materials for inlays and onlays: a review. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent 8:657–666 (quiz 668)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tveit AB, Espelid I (1986) Radiographic diagnosis of caries and marginal defects in connection with radiopaque composite fillings. Dent Mater 2:159–162PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Versteeg CH, Sanderink GC, van der Stelt PF (1997) Efficacy of digital intra-oral radiography in clinical dentistry. J Dent 25:215–224PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wenzel A, Hintze H, Horsted-Bindslev P (1998) Discrimination between restorative dental materials by their radiopacity measured in film radiographs and digital images. J Forensic Odontostomatol 16:8–13PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carlos José Soares
    • 1
    • 4
  • Fernanda Ribeiro Santana
    • 1
  • Rodrigo Borges Fonseca
    • 2
  • Luis Roberto Marcondes Martins
    • 2
  • Francisco Haiter Neto
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Operative Dentistry and Dental MaterialsDental School-Federal University of UberlândiaUberlândiaBrazil
  2. 2.Department of Dental Materials, Piracicaba Dental SchoolUniversity of CampinasUberlândiaBrazil
  3. 3.Department of Oral Radiology, Piracicaba Dental SchoolUniversity of CampinasPiracicabaBrazil
  4. 4.Departamento de Dentística e Materiais Odontológicos, Faculdade de OdontologiaUniversidade Federal de UberlândiaUberlândiaBrazil

Personalised recommendations