José Maurício Dos Santos Nunes Reis, Erica Gouveia Jorge, João Gustavo Rabelo Ribeiro, Ligia Antunes Pereira Pinelli, Filipe de Oliveira Abi-Rached, Mário Tanomaru-Filho
{"title":"数字化影像评价当代骨水泥的透光度。","authors":"José Maurício Dos Santos Nunes Reis, Erica Gouveia Jorge, João Gustavo Rabelo Ribeiro, Ligia Antunes Pereira Pinelli, Filipe de Oliveira Abi-Rached, Mário Tanomaru-Filho","doi":"10.5402/2012/704246","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Objective. The aim of this study was to evaluate the radiopacity of two conventional cements (Zinc Cement and Ketac Cem Easymix), one resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RelyX Luting 2) and six resin cements (Multilink, Bistite II DC, RelyX ARC, Fill Magic Dual Cement, Enforce and Panavia F) by digitization of images. Methods. Five disc-shaped specimens (10 × 1.0 mm) were made for each material, according to ISO 4049. After setting of the cements, radiographs were made using occlusal films and a graduated aluminum stepwedge varying from 1.0 to 16 mm in thickness. The radiographs were digitized, and the radiopacity of the cements was compared with the aluminum stepwedge using the software VIXWIN-2000. Data (mmAl) were submitted to one-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (α = 0.05). Results. The Zinc Cement was the most radiopaque material tested (P < 0.05). The resin cements presented higher radiopacity (P < 0.05) than the conventional (Ketac Cem Easymix) or resin-modified glass ionomer (RelyX Luting 2) cements, except for the Fill Magic Dual Cement and Enforce. The Multilink presented the highest radiopacity (P < 0.05) among the resin cements. Conclusion. The glass ionomer-based cements (Ketac Cem Easymix and RelyX Luting 2) and the resin cements (Fill Magic Dual Cement and Enforce) showed lower radiopacity values than the minimum recommended by the ISO standard.</p>","PeriodicalId":89396,"journal":{"name":"ISRN dentistry","volume":"2012 ","pages":"704246"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3449120/pdf/","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Radiopacity evaluation of contemporary luting cements by digitization of images.\",\"authors\":\"José Maurício Dos Santos Nunes Reis, Erica Gouveia Jorge, João Gustavo Rabelo Ribeiro, Ligia Antunes Pereira Pinelli, Filipe de Oliveira Abi-Rached, Mário Tanomaru-Filho\",\"doi\":\"10.5402/2012/704246\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Objective. The aim of this study was to evaluate the radiopacity of two conventional cements (Zinc Cement and Ketac Cem Easymix), one resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RelyX Luting 2) and six resin cements (Multilink, Bistite II DC, RelyX ARC, Fill Magic Dual Cement, Enforce and Panavia F) by digitization of images. Methods. Five disc-shaped specimens (10 × 1.0 mm) were made for each material, according to ISO 4049. After setting of the cements, radiographs were made using occlusal films and a graduated aluminum stepwedge varying from 1.0 to 16 mm in thickness. The radiographs were digitized, and the radiopacity of the cements was compared with the aluminum stepwedge using the software VIXWIN-2000. Data (mmAl) were submitted to one-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (α = 0.05). Results. The Zinc Cement was the most radiopaque material tested (P < 0.05). The resin cements presented higher radiopacity (P < 0.05) than the conventional (Ketac Cem Easymix) or resin-modified glass ionomer (RelyX Luting 2) cements, except for the Fill Magic Dual Cement and Enforce. The Multilink presented the highest radiopacity (P < 0.05) among the resin cements. Conclusion. The glass ionomer-based cements (Ketac Cem Easymix and RelyX Luting 2) and the resin cements (Fill Magic Dual Cement and Enforce) showed lower radiopacity values than the minimum recommended by the ISO standard.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":89396,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ISRN dentistry\",\"volume\":\"2012 \",\"pages\":\"704246\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2012-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3449120/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ISRN dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5402/2012/704246\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2012/9/13 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ISRN dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5402/2012/704246","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2012/9/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9
摘要
目标。本研究的目的是通过数字化图像评估两种常规水泥(Zinc Cement和Ketac Cem Easymix)、一种树脂改性玻璃离子水泥(RelyX Luting 2)和六种树脂水泥(Multilink、Bistite II DC、RelyX ARC、Fill Magic Dual Cement、Enforce和Panavia F)的放射不透性。方法。根据ISO 4049,每种材料制作5个圆盘状试样(10 × 1.0 mm)。水泥固化后,使用咬合膜和厚度从1.0 mm到16mm不等的分级铝楔片拍摄x线片。对x线片进行数字化处理,并利用VIXWIN-2000软件对胶结物与铝阶梯楔的放射线透明度进行比较。数据(mmAl)采用单因素方差分析和Tukey检验(α = 0.05)。结果。锌水泥是最不透射线的材料(P < 0.05)。除Fill Magic Dual Cement和Enforce外,树脂胶合剂比常规(Ketac Cem Easymix)或树脂改性玻璃离子(RelyX Luting 2)胶合剂具有更高的放射不透明度(P < 0.05)。Multilink的放射不透明度最高(P < 0.05)。结论。玻璃离子基水泥(Ketac Cem Easymix和RelyX Luting 2)和树脂水泥(Fill Magic Dual Cement和Enforce)的放射不透明度值低于ISO标准推荐的最低值。
Radiopacity evaluation of contemporary luting cements by digitization of images.
Objective. The aim of this study was to evaluate the radiopacity of two conventional cements (Zinc Cement and Ketac Cem Easymix), one resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RelyX Luting 2) and six resin cements (Multilink, Bistite II DC, RelyX ARC, Fill Magic Dual Cement, Enforce and Panavia F) by digitization of images. Methods. Five disc-shaped specimens (10 × 1.0 mm) were made for each material, according to ISO 4049. After setting of the cements, radiographs were made using occlusal films and a graduated aluminum stepwedge varying from 1.0 to 16 mm in thickness. The radiographs were digitized, and the radiopacity of the cements was compared with the aluminum stepwedge using the software VIXWIN-2000. Data (mmAl) were submitted to one-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (α = 0.05). Results. The Zinc Cement was the most radiopaque material tested (P < 0.05). The resin cements presented higher radiopacity (P < 0.05) than the conventional (Ketac Cem Easymix) or resin-modified glass ionomer (RelyX Luting 2) cements, except for the Fill Magic Dual Cement and Enforce. The Multilink presented the highest radiopacity (P < 0.05) among the resin cements. Conclusion. The glass ionomer-based cements (Ketac Cem Easymix and RelyX Luting 2) and the resin cements (Fill Magic Dual Cement and Enforce) showed lower radiopacity values than the minimum recommended by the ISO standard.