{"title":"量化和比较数字牙科x光片中五种大块填充复合材料的放射不透明度-对人类识别的贡献","authors":"Daphne Azambuja Hatschbach de AQUINO , Ângela FERNANDES , Luiz Roberto Coutinho MANHÃES JUNIOR","doi":"10.1016/j.jofri.2019.03.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>: To compare the quantified radiopacity of five bulk fill composites in digital dental radiographs.</p></div><div><h3>Material and methods</h3><p>: An in-vitro observational study was performed with five dental restoration materials: I) Bulk Fill Surefil SDR+ flow® (Dentsply Sirona®, York, PA, USA), II) Bulk Fill Sonic Fill® (Kerr Corp.®, Orange, CA, USA); III) Filtek Bulk Fill flow® (3M Company®, Maplewood, MN, USA); IV) Tetric N Ceram Bulk Fill® (Ivoclar Vivadent®, Schaan, Liechtenstein); and V) Aura® (SDI Ltd.®, Victoria, Australia). Digital radiographs were taken standardly from four samples of each composite (<em>n</em> = 20). The radiopacity inherent detected in the radiographs was quantified using a 9-level aluminum scale.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>: ANOVA and Tukey's test showed statistically significant differences between the radiopacity of all bulk fill composites (<em>p</em><0.0001), except between I and IV (<em>p</em> = 1.0). Spearman's outcomes revealed that only composite I had positive moderate (rS=0.63) correlation with the respective radiopacity level in the aluminum scale (<em>p</em> = 0.027).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>: Most of the bulk fill composites addressed in this study were distinguishable from each other based on their radiopacity. The identification of type and even brand of composites may be a promising task in human identification. However, this procedure remains challenging and the scientific evidence behind it is still scarce in the forensic literature.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":45371,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Forensic Radiology and Imaging","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.jofri.2019.03.002","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Quantifying and comparing the radiopacity of five bulk fill composites in digital dental radiographs – a contribution to human identification\",\"authors\":\"Daphne Azambuja Hatschbach de AQUINO , Ângela FERNANDES , Luiz Roberto Coutinho MANHÃES JUNIOR\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jofri.2019.03.002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>: To compare the quantified radiopacity of five bulk fill composites in digital dental radiographs.</p></div><div><h3>Material and methods</h3><p>: An in-vitro observational study was performed with five dental restoration materials: I) Bulk Fill Surefil SDR+ flow® (Dentsply Sirona®, York, PA, USA), II) Bulk Fill Sonic Fill® (Kerr Corp.®, Orange, CA, USA); III) Filtek Bulk Fill flow® (3M Company®, Maplewood, MN, USA); IV) Tetric N Ceram Bulk Fill® (Ivoclar Vivadent®, Schaan, Liechtenstein); and V) Aura® (SDI Ltd.®, Victoria, Australia). Digital radiographs were taken standardly from four samples of each composite (<em>n</em> = 20). The radiopacity inherent detected in the radiographs was quantified using a 9-level aluminum scale.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>: ANOVA and Tukey's test showed statistically significant differences between the radiopacity of all bulk fill composites (<em>p</em><0.0001), except between I and IV (<em>p</em> = 1.0). Spearman's outcomes revealed that only composite I had positive moderate (rS=0.63) correlation with the respective radiopacity level in the aluminum scale (<em>p</em> = 0.027).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>: Most of the bulk fill composites addressed in this study were distinguishable from each other based on their radiopacity. The identification of type and even brand of composites may be a promising task in human identification. However, this procedure remains challenging and the scientific evidence behind it is still scarce in the forensic literature.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45371,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Forensic Radiology and Imaging\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.jofri.2019.03.002\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Forensic Radiology and Imaging\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212478018301011\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Forensic Radiology and Imaging","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212478018301011","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
摘要
目的:比较5种体填充复合材料在数字牙科x线片上的量化放射不透明度。材料和方法:采用五种牙科修复材料进行体外观察研究:1)Bulk Fill Surefil SDR+ flow®(Dentsply Sirona®,York, PA, USA), II) Bulk Fill Sonic Fill®(Kerr Corp.®,Orange, CA, USA);III) Filtek Bulk Fill flow®(3M Company®,Maplewood, MN, USA);IV) N陶瓷散装填料®(Ivoclar Vivadent®,Schaan,列支敦士登);V) Aura®(SDI Ltd.®,Victoria, Australia)。从每种复合材料的4个样本中标准采集数字x线照片(n = 20)。在x线片中检测到的放射不透性用9级铝标度量化。结果:方差分析和Tukey检验显示,除I和IV之间(p = 1.0)外,所有块状填充复合材料的放射不透明度之间存在统计学差异(p<0.0001)。Spearman的结果显示,只有复合I与铝标度中各自的放射不透明度水平呈正相关(rS=0.63) (p = 0.027)。结论:本文研究的大部分填充复合材料根据其对射线的不透明程度是可以区分的。复合材料的类型甚至品牌识别可能是人类识别中一个很有前途的任务。然而,这一程序仍然具有挑战性,其背后的科学证据在法医文献中仍然很少。
Quantifying and comparing the radiopacity of five bulk fill composites in digital dental radiographs – a contribution to human identification
Objectives
: To compare the quantified radiopacity of five bulk fill composites in digital dental radiographs.
Material and methods
: An in-vitro observational study was performed with five dental restoration materials: I) Bulk Fill Surefil SDR+ flow® (Dentsply Sirona®, York, PA, USA), II) Bulk Fill Sonic Fill® (Kerr Corp.®, Orange, CA, USA); III) Filtek Bulk Fill flow® (3M Company®, Maplewood, MN, USA); IV) Tetric N Ceram Bulk Fill® (Ivoclar Vivadent®, Schaan, Liechtenstein); and V) Aura® (SDI Ltd.®, Victoria, Australia). Digital radiographs were taken standardly from four samples of each composite (n = 20). The radiopacity inherent detected in the radiographs was quantified using a 9-level aluminum scale.
Results
: ANOVA and Tukey's test showed statistically significant differences between the radiopacity of all bulk fill composites (p<0.0001), except between I and IV (p = 1.0). Spearman's outcomes revealed that only composite I had positive moderate (rS=0.63) correlation with the respective radiopacity level in the aluminum scale (p = 0.027).
Conclusion
: Most of the bulk fill composites addressed in this study were distinguishable from each other based on their radiopacity. The identification of type and even brand of composites may be a promising task in human identification. However, this procedure remains challenging and the scientific evidence behind it is still scarce in the forensic literature.