IADR Abstract Archives
Radiopacity of an Experimental Universal Adhesive
Objectives: Objectives: Aim of this study was to assess the radiopacity of an experimental universal adhesive (ADH-XTE, 3M) versus commonly used adhesives.
Methods: Methods: Solvents were evaporated from adhesives (ADH-XTE, 3M; ScotchbondTM Universal, SBU, 3M, AdheSETM Universal, ADU, Ivoclar-Vivadent; Prime&BondTM NT, PBNT, Dentsply-Sirona; Prime&Bond ActiveTM, PBA, Dentsply-Sirona; ClearfilTM SE Bond, CSE, Kuraray-Noritake; OptibondTM Solo PlusTM, OSP, Kerr). The remaining liquid was cured in polytetrafluoroethylene moulds (10mm diameter, 1mm height) using an Elipar S10 curing light (3M) to produce disks (n=3). 1mm thick disks of mid-coronal dentin of human molars were prepared using a circular saw (Accutom, Struers, n=3). Radiopacity was determined according to ISO13116:2014, using a Heliodent Plus device (Dentsply-Sirona) and VistaScan digital imaging equipment (Dürr Dental), voltage 60kV.
Class I cavities (4mm deep) were prepared in extracted human molars. Adhesives were applied using a fully saturated disposable applicator according to manufacturers’ instructions, and gently air dried to provoke pooling at the cavity bottom. Cavities were restored with FiltekTM One (3M). Radiographs of teeth were taken using above equipment and examined for radiolucent areas underneath the fillings.
Results: Results: The table shows the radiopacity in % of aluminium, and the occurrence of radiolucent areas under the restorations. Standard deviations (SD) are given in parentheses. Radiopacity data were analyzed by ANOVA and multiple comparisons using the Tukey test (p<0.05). Means with the same letters are statistically the same.
Conclusions: Conclusion: ADH-XTE and human mid-coronal dentin had statistically the same radiopacity. All other adhesives tested had significantly lower radiopacity. Radiopacity of the adhesive may reduce the occurrence of doubtful X-ray images, where a radiolucent thicker adhesive layer under a restoration might be misinterpreted as caries, gap or void resulting in unnecessary treatment.
Methods: Methods: Solvents were evaporated from adhesives (ADH-XTE, 3M; ScotchbondTM Universal, SBU, 3M, AdheSETM Universal, ADU, Ivoclar-Vivadent; Prime&BondTM NT, PBNT, Dentsply-Sirona; Prime&Bond ActiveTM, PBA, Dentsply-Sirona; ClearfilTM SE Bond, CSE, Kuraray-Noritake; OptibondTM Solo PlusTM, OSP, Kerr). The remaining liquid was cured in polytetrafluoroethylene moulds (10mm diameter, 1mm height) using an Elipar S10 curing light (3M) to produce disks (n=3). 1mm thick disks of mid-coronal dentin of human molars were prepared using a circular saw (Accutom, Struers, n=3). Radiopacity was determined according to ISO13116:2014, using a Heliodent Plus device (Dentsply-Sirona) and VistaScan digital imaging equipment (Dürr Dental), voltage 60kV.
Class I cavities (4mm deep) were prepared in extracted human molars. Adhesives were applied using a fully saturated disposable applicator according to manufacturers’ instructions, and gently air dried to provoke pooling at the cavity bottom. Cavities were restored with FiltekTM One (3M). Radiographs of teeth were taken using above equipment and examined for radiolucent areas underneath the fillings.
Results: Results: The table shows the radiopacity in % of aluminium, and the occurrence of radiolucent areas under the restorations. Standard deviations (SD) are given in parentheses. Radiopacity data were analyzed by ANOVA and multiple comparisons using the Tukey test (p<0.05). Means with the same letters are statistically the same.
Conclusions: Conclusion: ADH-XTE and human mid-coronal dentin had statistically the same radiopacity. All other adhesives tested had significantly lower radiopacity. Radiopacity of the adhesive may reduce the occurrence of doubtful X-ray images, where a radiolucent thicker adhesive layer under a restoration might be misinterpreted as caries, gap or void resulting in unnecessary treatment.