Dental Materials Journal 2012; 31(1): 68–75

Radiopacity of different resin-based and conventional luting cements

compared to human and bovine teeth
Gürel PEKKAN1 and Mutlu ÖZCAN2

Dumlupinar University, Faculty of Dentistry, Tavsanli Yolu 10. km, 43270 Kutahya, Turkey
1

University of Zürich, Dental Materials Unit, Center for Dental and Oral Medicine, Clinic for Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Materials
2

Science, Plattenstrasse 11, CH-8032 Zürich, Switzerland

Corresponding author,  Gürel PEKKAN;  E-mail:  gurelp@gmail.com


This study evaluated the radiopacity of different resin-based luting materials and compared the results to human and bovine dental
hard tissues. Disc specimens (N=130, n=10 per group) (diameter: 6 mm, thickness: 1 mm) were prepared from 10 resin-based and 3
conventional luting cements. Human canine dentin (n=10), bovine enamel (n=10), bovine dentin (n=10) and Aluminium (Al) step
wedge were used as references. The optical density values of each material were measured from radiographic images using a
transmission densitometer. Al step wedge thickness and optical density values were plotted and equivalent Al thickness values were
determined for radiopacity measurements of each material. The radiopacity values of conventional cements and two resin luting
materials (Rely X Unicem and Variolink II), were significantly higher than that of bovine enamel that could be preferred for
restorations cemented on enamel. Since all examined resin-based luting materials showed radiopacity values equivalent to or greater
than that of human and bovine dentin, they could be considered suitable for the restorations cemented on dentin.

Keywords: Adhesion, Luting cement, Optical density, Radiopacity, Resin cement



materials be sufficiently radiopaque to permit detection

INTRODUCTION
All-ceramic restorations are becoming increasingly
popular in dentistry due to their outstanding esthetics
and high strength1). Especially for minimal invasive
all-ceramic restorations such as inlays, onlays, laminates,
adhesive cementation is a prerequisite. Resin-based
luting materials considerably increase the resistance of
all-ceramic restorations under occlusal loading2-6). Resin-
bonding also reduces microleakage compared to
conventional cements7).
In particular for esthetic anterior restorations,
translucent ceramic materials are preferred where the
choice of luting agent has a substantial influence on the
outcome8). Expanded kits of resin cements with multiple
shades are available deriving their shades and opacity
from various fillers2,9). The color stability and thereby
radiopacity of resin-based luting materials is also of
great importance. Among many variables that affect the
color stability of resin-based restorative materials or
luting-agents, radiopaque fillers play a significant
role10-12). While the amine accelerator necessary for dual
polymerization may also cause color change of the luting
agent over time13), photo-polymerizing resin-based luting
materials are preferred due to their color stability14,15).
Non-metallic inlays, onlays, all-ceramic crowns and fixed
dental prosthesis (FDP) are typically cemented using
dual polymerized resin cements3-5,16,17). On the other
hand, chemically polymerizing resin cements are advised
for the cementation of prefabricated posts, radiolucent
non-metallic posts, carbon-fiber posts, gold inlay/onlay
restorations, metallic crowns and FDPs17,18).
Radiopacity is an important feature of esthetic
resin-based luting materials18,19). It is essential that such
of marginal overhangs, open gingival margins, as well as
recurrent caries in the gingival areas18,20,21). When the
luting agent is not radiopaque enough, it is impossible to
detect excess luting agent or caries radiographically20).
Ideally, restorative materials should have radiopacity
values equivalent to or greater than that of dentin22-25).
Previous studies used different methods to evaluate the
radiopacity of dental materials26-30). In fact, the
International Organization for Standardization (ISO)
has published radiopacity evaluation protocol and set
guidelines for radiopacity of polymer-based filling,
restorative and luting materials31). According to the
protocol, the radiopacity of a dental material is expressed
as optical density value or in terms of equivalent
aluminium (Al) thickness (in millimeters) using a
reference calibration curve under controlled radiographic
conditions32). Consequently, such materials should have
radiopacity level equal to or greater than that of Al32).
Filler type and amount of radiopaque fillers may
influence the radiopacity of resin-based materials33).
Although filler type does not affect the degree of
conversion and polymerization shrinkage of resin
composites, the radiopaque particles increase the
thermal expansion, hydrolyze the silane bonding agent,
and cause opacity12). Quartz and silica fillers on the other
hand are not radiopaque. Therefore, it can be anticipated
that cements containing such fillers would present less
radiopacity compared to those of conventional cements.
Some of these resin cements are available in different
shades. Since primarily the composition of the cements
remains the same, no significant difference could be
expected between different shades. Radiopacity level of
conventional or resin-based cements may influence the

Received Mar 25, 2011: Accepted Sep 14, 2011

doi:10.4012/dmj.2011-079 JOI JST.JSTAGE/dmj/2011-079
 Dent Mater J 2012; 31(1): 68–75 69

detection of caries or the evaluation of integrity of the
restoration margins. From clinically and biological
standpoint, radiopacity level of cements in relation to
dentin and enamel could influence choice of cements for
tooth-colored indirect restorations.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the
radiopacity of different resin-based luting materials,
conventional cements and compare the values to those of
human and bovine dental hard tissues and Al step
wedge, as the control. The hypothesis tested were that a)
resin-based luting cements containing glass particles
would show similar radiopacity values, b) resin cements
would present less radiopacity compared to conventional
cements, and c) different shades of resin cements would
show similar radiopacity values.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Specimen preparation
Disc specimens (N=130, n=10 per group) (diameter: 6
mm, thickness: 1 mm) were prepared from from 10
resin-based and 3 conventional luting cements. The
thickness of the secimens were set to 1 mm in accordance
with the ISO Standard 404931). The materials, their
chemical compositions, manufacturers and batch
numbers are listed in Table 1.
Cements were mixed according to each
manufacturer’s instructions and compressed between
two glass slides in the mold during photo-polymerization
(Hilux Ledmax 1040, Darphie Ltd., Bangkok, Thailand).
All materials were polymerized for 40 s from a constant
distance of 2 mm from the surface. Light output was
minimum 500 mW/cm2 measured with a radiometer
(Hilux Ledmax 1040) after every 10 specimens.
All specimens were ground finished to 400-grit
silicon carbide paper (Struers, Willich, Germany) under
water to create flat surfaces. Thickness of the specimens
was measured with a digital caliper (Youfound Precision
Co. Ltd, Zhejiang, China) with a critical tolerance of
1±0.01 mm. All specimens were ultrasonically cleaned in
distilled water for 5 min (Eurosonic 4D, Euronda S.p.A.,
Vicenza, Italy). All specimens were then kept in distilled
water at 37°C for 24 h. Samples of human canine dentin
(n=10), bovine dentin (n=10), bovine enamel (n=10) were

Table 1 Brands, shades, manufacturers, chemical compositions of the materials investigated in this study
Brands and
Chemical composition**, Batch number Manufacturer
shades
Panavia F TC Paste A: 10-MDP, hydrophobic and hydrophilic dimethacrylate, benzoyl Kuraray Medical Inc.,
(PFT) peroxide, camphoroquinone, colloidal silica Okayama, Japan
Paste B: Sodium fluoride, hydrophobic and hydrophilic dimethacrylate,
diethanol-p-toluidine, T-isopropylic benzenic sodium sulfinate, barium glass,
titanium dioxide, colloidal silica

Batch no:
Paste A: 00222A
Paste B: 00122
Variolink II Base: Bis-GMA, UDMA, TEGDMA, benzoyl peroxide, Ba-Al- Flurosilicate Ivoclar Vivadent AG,
Universal glass, stabilizers, pigments Schaan, Liechtenstein
dual- Catalyst: Ytterbium trifluoride, dimethacrylates, inorganic fillers, Bis-GMA,
polymerized dl-camphorquinone, stabilizers, pigments
(VLD) Base: monomer 26.3 wt%, filler 73.4 wt%
Catalyst high viscosity: monomer 22 wt%, filler 77.2 wt%

Batch no: 58561

Variolink II Base: monomer 26.3 wt%, filler 73.4 wt% Ivoclar Vivadent AG,
Universal Catalyst high viscosity: monomer 22 wt%, filler 77.2 wt% Schaan, Liechtenstein
Photo-
polymerized Batch no: 58561
(VLL)

Nexus 2 Bis-GMA, 70 wt%, 47 wt % inorganic filler, average particle size: 0.6 µm Kerr Corp., Orange,
(NXS) CA
Batch no:
Base: 403996
Catalyst: 406257
Duolink Bis-GMA (5–30 wt%), TEGDMA (5–20 wt%), UDMA (5–15 wt%, base only), Bisco Inc,
(DL) glass filler (50–80 wt%) Schaumburg, IL

Batch no: 0400003526

70 Dent Mater J 2012; 31(1): 68–75

Table 1 (continued)
Brands and
Chemical composition**, Batch number Manufacturer
shades
Rely X Unicem Powder: Silanized glass powder 85–95 wt%, silane treated silica 5–10 wt%, 3M ESPE AG,
Aplicap A2 calcium hydroxide 1–5 wt%, substituted pyrimidine 1–5 wt%, sodium Seefeld, Germany
(RX2) persulfate <1 wt%
Liquid: Methacrylated phosphoric acid esters 40–50 wt%, TEGDMA 25–35
wt%, substituted dimethacrylate 22–34 wt%

Batch no: 258548

Rely X Unicem Powder: Silanized glass powder 85–95 wt%, silane treated silica 5–10 wt%, 3M ESPE AG,
Aplicap A3 calcium hydroxide 1–5 wt%, substituted pyrimidine 1–5 wt%, sodium sulfate Seefeld, Germany
(RX3) <1 wt%
Liquid: Methacrylated phosphoric acid esters 40–50 wt%, TEGDMA 25–35
wt%, substituted dimethacrylate 22–34 wt%

Batch no: 258548

Rely X Unicem Powder: Silanized glass powder 85–95 wt%, silane treated silica 5–10 wt%, 3M ESPE AG,
Aplicap calcium hydroxide 1–5 wt%, substituted pyrimidine 1–5 wt%, sodium sulfate Seefeld, Germany
Translucent <1 wt%
(RXT) Liquid: Methacrylated phosphoric acid esters 40–50 wt%, TEGDMA 25–35
wt%, substituted dimethacrylate 22–34 wt%

Batch no: 258548

Rely X ARC, Paste A: Silane-treated silica, TEGDMA, Bis-GMA, functionalized 3M ESPE AG,
Universal dimethacrylate polymer Seefeld, Germany
A3 (RAC3) Paste B: Silane-treated ceramic, TEGDMA, Bis-GMA, silane treated silica,
functionalized dimethacrylate polymer

Batch no: FLGH

Rely X ARC, Paste A: Silane-treated silica, TEGDMA, Bis-GMA, functionalized 3M ESPE AG,
Transparent A1 dimethacrylate polymer Seefeld, Germany
(RAC1) Paste B: Silane-treated ceramic, TEGDMA, Bis-GMA, silane treated silica,
functionalized dimethacrylate polymer

Batch no: EYGH

Ketac Cem Powder: Glass powder, polycarboxylic acid, pigments 3M ESPE AG,
Easymix Liquid: Water, tartaric acid, conservation agents Seefeld, Germany
glass ionomer
luting cement Batch no:
(KCE) Powder: 241231
Liquid: 235634
Adhesor Powder: Oxides (Zn, Mg, Al), boric acid Spofa Dental a.s.,
Carbofine Liquid: Acrylic acid, maleic acid anhydride, distilled water Prague, Czech
Zinc Republic
polycarboxylate Batch no:
cement Powder: 1726657
(ZNC) Liquid: 1700128
Adhesor Powder: Zinc oxide, magnesium oxide, aluminium trihydroxide, boron trioxide Spofa Dental a.s.,
Zinc phosphate Liquid: “Normal” aqueous solution of phosphoric acid and aluminium Prague, Czech
cement orthophosphate and “Rapid” aqueous solution of phosphoric acid, aluminium Republic
(ZNP) orthophosphate and zinc orthophosphate

Batch no:
Powder: 1399466
Liquid: 1382770-2
*MDP: 10-Methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate; TEGDMA: Triethyleneglycol dimethacrylate; Bis-GMA: bisphenol-
A-diglycidyl methacrylate; UDMA: urethane dimethacrylate; HEMA: 2-Hydroxyethyl methacrylate. **All information is
obtained from material safety sheet data of the products tested.
 Dent Mater J 2012; 31(1): 68–75 71

Fig. 1 One specimen from each test material, bovine
dentin and enamel, a human canine slice and Al
step wedge positioned on an occlusal radiograph.
Fig. 2 Representative developed radiograph with all
specimens. Canine tooth (left), (top row) KCE,
RX2, RAC1, RXT, ZNC; (second row) VLD, DL,
PFT, RX3, BE; (bottom row) NXS, RAC3, VLL,
ZNP, BD; Al step wedge.

used as reference of radiopacity, whereas an Al step

wedge was used to internal control of radiopacity. Ten
enamel and dentin disk specimens were prepared from
mandibular bovine incisors (diameter: 6 mm, thickness:
1 mm) by longitudinal sectioning of the buccal side of the
teeth after separating the roots. Longitudinal sections of
human dentin were also prepared to the same thickness
using a micro-slicing device (Accutom, Struers Co,
Copenhagen, Denmark).

Radiopacity analysis
An Al step wedge was machined from a single Al block
(Alu-Keil, PEHA Medikal Geräte GmbH, Sulzbach,
Germany) using electrical discharge machining
technique. The maximum thickness of the step wedge
was 8 mm where each step had a thickness of 1 mm,
length of 4 mm, and width of 14 mm. The Al step wedge
was used to internal control of radiopacity.
One specimen of each material, bovine enamel,
bovine dentin and human dentin and an Al step wedge
were positioned side by side on occlusal D speed
radiographic film (Kodak Ultra-speed, Eastman Kodak
Company, Rochester, NY) (Fig. 1). A special holder was
mounted to ensure a fixed focus/film distance. The films
were exposed for 0.38 s with a dental X-ray system
(Trophy, Vincennes, France) at 70 kV and 8 mA where
the object-to-film distance was 30 cm. All films were
processed immediately in a standard automatic processor
(Velopex Extra-X, Medivance, Harlesden, UK) using
fresh developer and fixer (Velopex Ready Mixed
Developer and Fixer, Hexagon International Ltd,
Berkhamsted, UK) (Fig. 2). The optical densities of the
radiographic images were measured with a transmission
densitometer (Pehamed Denso-Dent Densitometer,
PEHA Medikal Geräte GmbH, Sulzbach, Germany).
Means of at least 3 readings per specimen was measured
with an aperture size of 3 mm (DIN 6868/55). Following
the method previously described elsewhere23), a graph
were plotted to illustrate the relationship between the
Fig. 3 Optical density calibration curves for Al step
wedge thickness.
step wedge thickness and optical density values with the
following equation: [y=−0.5296Ln(x)+2.1971]. From that
graph, optical density values of the specimens were used
to determine the equivalent Al thickness (eq Al) values
(Fig. 3).
Statistical analysis
Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 13.0 for
Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL). Data were analyzed
using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), Kruskal-
Wallis and Student-Newman-Keuls multiple range tests
(=0.05).
RESULTS
Significant difference was observed between radiopacity
values of the tested materials (Kruskal-Wallis)
(p<0.0001) (Table 2). Among conventional cements, zinc
phosphate cement showed the highest radiopacity
(p<0.0001) (7.845±1.011) followed by zinc polycarboxylate
(6.290±0.379) and glass-ionomer (1.808±0.258). From
72 Dent Mater J 2012; 31(1): 68–75

Table 2 Means and standard deviations (SD) of optical density and equivalent Aluminium (Al) step wedge thickness
values of the tested materials, human dentin (HD), bovine dentin (BD) and bovine enamel (BE) and statistical
differences between groups. See Table 1 for material coding.
Optical density values Equivalent Al Step wedge values
Material code Statistical differences*
(Mean±SD) (Mean±SD)
HD 2.084±0.086 1.254±0.220 A
BD 2.039±0.067 1.358±0.174 A,B
PFT 2.007±0.062 1.441±0.178 B,C
DL 1.999±0.078 1.469±0.235 C
NXS 1.925±0.081 1.690±0.279 D
RAC3 1.910±0.071 1.734±0.248 D
RAC1 1.898±0.065 1.772±0.233 D
BE 1.888±0.072 1.808±0.262 D
KCE 1.888±0.071 1.808±0.258 D
RX2 1.806±0.052 2.102±0.208 E
RX3 1.788±0.061 2.178±0.259 E
RXT 1.773±0.068 2.245±0.305 E
VLD 1.457±0.065 4.072±0.502 F
VLL 1.418±0.048 4.371±0.410 F
ZNC 1.224±0.031 6.290±0.379 G
ZNP 1.110±0.067 7.845±1.011 H
*The same letters in the column indicate no significant differences according to Student-Newman-Keuls multiple range
tests (p<0.05).

conventional cements only zinc phosphate and zinc
polycarboxylate showed significantly higher radiopacity
compared to bovine enamel (1.808±0.262). All
conventional cements tested showed significantly higher
radiopacity than those of human dentin (1.254±0.220)
and bovine dentin (1.358±0.174) (p<0.0001) both of which
were not significant (p>0.05).
All resin based luting materials (1.441±0.178–
4.371±0.410) showed similar to or significantly higher
radiopacity values than those of human and bovine
dentin.
The radiopacity values of resin luting materials Rely
X Unicem (2.102–2.245) and Variolink II (4.072–4.371)
were significantly higher than that of bovine enamel
(1.808±0.262) being also significant from each other.
DISCUSSION
Radiopacity of a material can be simply defined as the
inverse of the optical density of a radiographic image.
Optical density value is a logarithmic measure of the
ratio of the transmitted-to-incident light through the
film image, measured by the transmission densitometry.
Optical density values depend not only on the inherent
X-ray absorption properties of the materials, but also on
the characteristics of the film (fog and base density), its
exposure parameters, and processing conditions34).
Therefore, in this study, the equivalent Al thickness
values were also calculated in order to compare the
results with a reference material. In this study, the
results were also compared to human dentin, bovine
enamel and bovine dentin. Bovine enamel and dentin
were used as it was reported to present similar
morphological and histological properties compared to
human teeth17,27). Bovine teeth also permitted to make
disc-shaped enamel specimens of 1 mm in thickness and
6 mm in diameter that was technically not possible with
the human teeth. Since the aperture of the transmission
densitometer was 3 mm in diameter, it allowed for the
measurement of an area of 7 mm2. For this reason, disks
with a diameter of 6 mm were obtained from the enamel
of bovine mandibular incisor which was not possible in
human enamel27).
It was previously reported that density of a
radiopaque resin-based materials should be more than
that of dentin and similar to or slightly higher than that
of enamel12). The use of materials with radiopacity close
to or less than dentin may result in diagnostic
challenges25). Conversely, too much radiopacity as in
amalgam, can interfere with the detection of voids and
recurrent caries and consequently, diagnostic
discrimination in areas covered by the restoration may
decrease32). A radiopacity slightly greater than that of
enamel assist in distinguishing between restorations
and carious affected or infected tooth structure as well as
determining homogeneity of the luting cement35).
According to the results of this study, considerable
differences were observed between the radiopacity
values of resin-based luting materials tested. Those of
the cements containing similar filler types showed
 Dent Mater J 2012; 31(1): 68–75
significant differences. Therefore the first hypothesis
could be rejected. All materials had radiopacity values
equivalent to or greater than that of human and bovine
dentin. Since significant differences in mean radiopacity
values were observed between the conventional and
resin-based luting materials, the second hypothesis was
accepted. On the other hand, as anticipated, cements of
the same kind with different shades did not show
significant differences yielding to acceptance of the third
hypothesis.
The radiopacity values were compared to bovine
dentin and human dentin both of which did not show
significant differences from one another indicating that
bovine dentin could substitute human dentin with its
similar morphological and histological characteristics36).
Variability in radiopacity values reported in different
studies could be attributed to many factors. Resin
composites are typically composed of inorganic fillers
dispersed in a resin matrix10,12). The radiopacity of a
resin-based material depends in part on selection of the
polymer matrix, chemical nature of the filler particles,
their size, density and an amount in the resin matrix10,11).
While resin matrices such as bisphenol-A-glycidyl
methacrylate (Bis-GMA), urethane dimethacrylate
(UDMA), 10-methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate
(MDP), triethyleneglycol dimethacrylate (TEGDMA),
2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA) contribute little to
the radiopacity of the material, it is typically the
inorganic filler component that contributes most to the
radiopacity of resin-based luting materials2,18). However,
the findings of this study clearly indicate that both MDP
and HEMA could have influenced radiopacity values as
the inorganic filler types were similar in these resin
cements. The effect of the matrix type on the radiopacity
of resin cements requires further investigations.
In resin-based materials, barium, yttrium,
ytterbium, zinc, aluminium, strontium, and zirconium
are additives that increase radiopacity10,37). Among the
tested resin cements, dual-polymerized and photo-
polymerized Variolink II presented radiopacity values
significantly higher than that of bovine enamel. Both of
these cements showed similar radiopacity that could be
attributed to the composition of the catalyst that gives
the radiopacity to both dual and photo-polymerizing
cements. The filler content (ytterbium trifluoride) was
also similar in these two cements possibly being
responsible from similar radiopacity values obtained18,19).
As expected, different shades of self-adhesive cement,
Rely X Unicem and Rely X ARC, also did not show
significant differences since the major effect in the
shades are obtained from oxides, which probably did not
interfere with the overall radiopacity. Although the filler
content was higher than that of Variolink II, radiopacity
was significantly less than those of Variolink II dual and
photo-polymerized cements. The difference could be due
to the high content of glass particles (85–95 wt%) in Rely
X Unicem according to the manufacturer’s information.
When conventional cements are compared, the higher
radiopacity of zinc polycarboxylate and zinc phosphate
more than glass-ionomer could be explained with the
73
magnesium oxide and to glass ionomer,
fluoroaluminosilicate glass and barium filler particles,
contributing to the radiopacity.
Although radiolucent resin-based luting agents may
have optical advantages, the overhangs may not be
controlled properly and recurrent decay may not be
detected. Their use should be particularly contraindicated
in situations where the margins are located in areas that
have difficult access25). In an in-vitro study, excess
cement could not be detected in association with
radiopaque resin composite inlays, even with the most
radiopaque materials, but they could be detected easier
adjacent to radiolucent porcelain inlays21). The use of
radiopaque resin-based luting materials is therefore
especially important in combination with radiolucent
restorations such as ceramic laminate veneers, inlays,
onlays and fiber posts or in restorations with
subgingivally located margins18,20,22). Although, post-
cementation protocols do not presently include routine
radiographic examination, inaccurate removal of cement
excess may lead to periodontal problems30). Particularly
when cement film thickness is less than 25–50 µm after
cementation, it is favourable to use the highest
radiopaque cement possible in order to be detected easily
in the radiographs21,33).
Radiographic density is directly obtained from
digital image analysis. The pixels already available in
grey shades provide the values straight at a scale of 0 to
255 through the sofware38). For this reason, direct or
indirect digital image analysis is considered as a fast
and easy resource for interpreting radiographic density
of the restorative materials in dental practice38). The
advantages of direct digital systems are immediate
image capture, lack of processing chemicals and high
sensitivity to radiation exposure39). Although direct or
indirect digital dental radiology systems are preferred to
study the radiopacity of a material due to low irradiation
dose, instant image, image manipulation, the X-ray film
technique is widely used by researchers and
manufacturers and it is still considered as a golden
standard technique18,26,34). Hence, the choice between
direct and indirect digital image analysis and
transmission densitometry requires further
investigations.
Variation in radiopacity measurements of the same
restorative materials among different studies depends
on a number of factors, including speed of the X-ray film,
exposure time, voltage used and the age of the developing
and fixing solutions23). Furthermore, source-film distance,
intensifying screens, grids and specimen thickness are
also among factors that affect the radiopacity values.
Among resin cements, although the radiopacity of
Variolink II was the highest in this study and in previous
studies18,19), the equivalent Al values were different.
While Rubo and El-Mowafy18) used 2.5 mm thick
specimens with focus-object distance of 40 cm at 65 kV,
Tsuge19) used 2.3 mm thick specimens and focus-object
distance of 35 cm at 60 kV. In this study, object-to-film
distance was 30 cm at 70 kV. ISO standards require the
minimum radiopacity of restorative materials be equal
74 Dent Mater J 2012; 31(1): 68–75
to or greater than that of an equivalent thickness of Al31).
Although the radiopacity of dentin and enamel specimens
varies, pure Al provides a constant reference value32). In
this present study, all materials had greater equivalent
thickness of Al, indicating that they all fulfilled the ISO
requirements.
One limitation of this study was that the oral
environment was not simulated. In the oral environment
factors such as oral fluids, soft tissues and the
surrounding dental structures may affect the radiopacity
levels of restorative materials in that low density
restorative materials become more visible on a
radiograph when the soft tissue and hard dental
structures are superimposed. Furthermore, leakage of
ions from silicone, barium, strontium, and sodium filler
particles into the aqueous medium may result in reduced
radiopacity40). Future studies are warranted to study the
radiopacity of luting cements after aging.
CONCLUSIONS
All examined resin-based luting materials showed
radiopacity values equivalent to or greater than that of
human and bovine dentin but not necessarily higher
than that of bovine enamel. Due to the higher radiopacity
values of conventional cements and Rely X Unicem and
Variolink II resin cements than that of bovine enamel,
they could be preferred for restorations cemented on
enamel. Since all examined resin-based luting materials
showed radiopacity values equivalent to or greater than
that of human and bovine dentin, they could be
considered suitable for the restorations cemented on
dentin.
REFERENCES
1) Tinschert J, Zwez D, Marx R, Anusavice KJ. Structural
reliability of alumina-, feldspar-, leucite-, mica-, and zirconia-
based ceramics. J Dent 2000; 28: 529-535.
2) Rosenstiel SF, Land MF, Crispin BJ. Dental luting agents: A
review of the current literature. J Prosthet Dent 1998; 80:
280-301.
3) El-Mowafy O, Rubo MH. Influence of composite inlay/onlay
thickness on hardening of dual-cured resin cements. J Can
Dent Assoc 2000; 66:147.
4) Michelini FS, Belser UC, Scherrer SS, De Rijk WG. Tensile
bond strength of gold and porcelain inlays to extracted teeth
using three cements. Int J Prosthodont 1995; 8: 324-331.
5) Al-Makramani BM, Razak AA, Abu-Hassan MI. Effect of
luting cements on the compressive strength of Turkom-Cera
all-ceramic copings. J Contemp Dent Pract 2008; 9: 33-40.
6) Addison O, Sodhi A, Fleming GJ. Seating load parameters
impact on dental ceramic reinforcement conferred by
cementation with resin-cements. Dent Mater 2010; 26:
915-921.
7) Piwowarczyk A, Lauer HC, Sorensen JA. Microleakage of
various cementing agents for full cast crowns. Dent Mater
2005; 21: 445-453.
8) Pena CE, Viotti RG, Dias WR, Santucci E, Rodrigues JA, Reis
AF. Esthetic rehabilitation of anterior conoid teeth:
comprehensive approach for improved and predictable
results. Eur J Esthet Dent 2009; 4: 210-224.
9) Glenner RA. Dental cements and tooth colored filling
materials. Bull Hist Dent 1993; 41: 111-115.
10) Bowen RL, Cleek GW. A new series of x-ray-opaque
reinforcing fillers for composite materials. J Dent Res 1972;
51: 177-182.
11) Chandler HH, Bowen RL, Paffenbarger GC, Mullineaux AL.
Clinical investigation of a radiopaque composite restorative
material. J Am Dent Assoc 1970; 81: 935-940.
12) Amirouche-Korichi A, Mauzali M, Watts DC. Effects of
monomer ratios and highly radiopaque fillers on degree of
conversion and shrinkage-strain of dental resin composites.
Dent Mater 2009; 25: 1411-1418.
13) Brauer GM, Dulik DM, Antonucci JM, Termini DJ, Argentar
H. New amine accelerators for composite restorative resins. J
Dent Res 1979; 58: 1994-2000.
14) Berrong JM, Weed RM, Schwartz IS. Color stability of
selected dual-cure composite resin cements. J Prosthodont
1993; 2: 24-27.
15) Noie F, O’Keefe KL, Power JM. Color stability of resin
cements after accelerated aging. Int J Prosthodont 1995; 8:
51-55.
16) Sorensen JA, Kang SK, Avera SP. Porcelain composite
interface microleakage with various porcelain surface
treatments. Dent Mater 1991; 7: 118-123.
17) Soares CJ, Mitsui FH, Neto FH, Marchi GM, Martins LR.
Radiodensity evaluation of seven root post systems. Am J
Dent 2005; 18: 57-60.
18) Rubo MH, El-Mowafy O. Radiopacity of dual-cured and
chemical-cured resin-based cements. Int J Prosthodont 1998;
18: 70-74.
19) Tsuge T. Radiopacity of conventional, resin-modified glass
ionomer, and resin-based luting materials. J Oral Sci 2009;
51: 223-230.
20) Goshima T, Goshima Y. Radiographic detection of recurrent
carious lesions associated with composite restorations. Oral
Surg 1990; 70: 236-239.
21) O’Rourke B, Walls AW, Wassell RW. Radiographic detection
of overhangs formed by resin composite luting agents. J Dent
1995; 23: 353-357.
22) Tveit AB, Espelid I. Radiographic diagnosis of caries and
marginal defects in connection with radiopaque composite
fillings. Dent Mater 1986; 2: 159-162.
23) El-Mowafy OM, Brown JW, McComb D. Radiopacity of direct
ceramic inlay restoratives. J Dent 1991; 19: 366-368.
24) Finger WJ, Ahlstrand WM, Fritz UB. Radiopacity of fiber-
reinforced resin posts. Am J Dent 2002; 15: 81-84.
25) Attar N, Tam LE, McCamb D. Mechanical and physical
properties of contemprorary dental luting agents. J Prosthet
Dent 2003; 89: 127-134.
26) Gürdal P, Akdeniz BG. Comparison of two methods for
radiometric evaluation of resin-based restorative materials.
Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1998; 27: 236-239.
27) Fonseca RB, Haiter-Neto F, Fernandes-Neto AJ, Barbosa
GAS, Soares CJ. Radiodensity of enamel and dentin of
human, bovine and swine teeth. Arch Oral Biol 2004; 49:
919-922.
28) Sabbagh J, Vreven J, Leloup G. Radiopacity of resin-based
materials measured in film radiographs and storage phosphor
plate (Digora). Oper Dent 2004; 29: 677-684.
29) Rasimick BJ, Gu S, Deutsch AS, Musikant BL. Measuring
the radiopacity of luting cements, dowels, and core build-up
materials with a digital radiography system using CCD
sensor. J Prosthodont 2007; 16: 357-364.
30) Wadhwani C, Hess T, Faber T, Pineyro A, Chen CS. A
descriptive study of the radiographic density of implant
restorative cements. J Prosthet Dent 2010; 103: 295-302.
31) International Standards Organisation. ISO 4049. Dentistry-
polymer-based filling, restorative and luting materials, 3rd
ed. 2000.
32) Watts DC, McCabe JF. Aluminium radiopacity standards for
 Dent Mater J 2012; 31(1): 68–75
dentistry: an international survey. J Dent 1999; 27: 73-78.
33) Taira M, Toyooka H, Miyawaki H, Yamaki M. Studies on
radiopaque composites containing ZrO2-SiO2 fillers prepared
by the sol-gel process. Dent Mater 1993; 9: 167-171.
34) El-Mowafy OM, Benmergui C. Radiopacity of resin-based
inlay luting cements. Oper Dent 1994; 19: 11-15.
35) Akerboom HB, Kreulen CM, van Amerongen WE, Mol A.
Radiopacity of posterior composite resins, composite resin
luting cements, and glass ionomer lining cements. J Prosthet
Dent. 1993; 70: 351-355.
36) Nakamichi I, Iwaku M, Fusayama T. Bovine teeth as possible
substitutes in the adhesion test. J Dent Res 1983; 62:
1076-1081.
37) Council on Dental Materials, Instruments, and Equipment.
75
The desirability of using radiopaque plastics in dentistry: A
status report. J Am Dent Assoc 1981; 102: 347-349.
38) Gu S, Rasimick BJ, Deutsch AS, Musikant BL. Radiopacity of
dental materials using a digital X-ray system. Dent Mater
2006; 22: 765-770.
39) Wenzel A, Hintze H, Horsted-Bindslev P. Discrimination
between restorative dental materials by their radiopacity
measured in film radiographs and digital images. J Forensic
Odontostomatol 1998; 16: 8-13.
40) Cruvinel DR, Garcia LFR, Casemiro LA, Pardini LC, Pires de
Souza FCP. Evaluation of radiopacity and microhardness of
composites submitted to artificial aging. Mat Res 2007; 10:
325-329.