Context: This study aimed to provide an overview of the literature on the radiopacity of dental materials in order to emphasize its importance.Evidence Acquisition: English-language literature was investigated using manual and electronic searches for the terms “radiopacity, ” “dental material, ” “cement, ” “composite, ” “ceramic, ” “endodontic root canal sealer, ” “bone graft, ” and “acrylic resin” in the databases of Medline, google scholar, and Scopus up to April 2016. Seventy-nine selected publications, including review articles, original articles, and books, were evaluated.Results: The radiopacity of different dental materials may be lower or higher than that of the replaced tissue depending on the restorative material used. The research revealed that highly-radiopaque materials should not be used in dental restorations, except as bone graft and endodontic root canal filling materials. For most of the dental restorative materials, moderate radiopacity within the range of the replaced dental tissue is recommended. However, the lower radiopacity of polymer-based restorative or prosthetic dental materials is still a significant clinical problem.Conclusions: The author recommends using highly-radiopaque materials whenever possible for treatment of bone defects and root canals. For dental materials that replace clinical crowns, the radiopacity should be within the range of that of the replaced tooth structure (dentin or enamel). The radiopacity of dental cements should be much higher than that of the enamel in order to facilitate detection of the thin cement remnants.

Introduction: There are numerous commercially available dentin replacement materials but radiopacity level of these materials is unknown. The aim of this study was to evaluate radiopacity of seven dentin replacement materials in Class I cavities using a digital analysis system. Methods: TheraCal LC, Biodentine, Calcimol LC, Ultra-Blend Plus, Equia Forte, Ionoseal, and ApaCal ART were used as dentin replacement materials. Seventy molar teeth were prepared with Class I cavities and then were divided into seven groups. Each material tested was placed on floor of the cavity and then filled by Filtek Z250 composite (3M ESPE). Radiographic images were taken using an indirect digital system. Also, one disc-shaped specimen from each material was examined by energy-assisted X-ray spectroscopy for composition analysis. Results: Radiopacity values were significantly different among materials (p < 0. 0001). Ultra-Blend Plus had the lowest radiopacity values. Calcimol LC, Equia Forte, and Ionoseal had significantly higher radiopacity levels compared to other materials and enamel. All materials demonstrated significantly higher radiopacity than dentin. Conclusions: Materials tested had different types and amounts of radiopacifier elements. Dentin replacement materials with lower radiopacity levels can create clinical challenges for diagnostic observations on margins.

Introduction: Radiopacity is a necessary property for luting cements. The aim of this study was to investigate the radiopacity of some luting dental cements used in prosthetic dentistry.Methods: Five disclike samples of each material (6x1mm) were prepared from panavia F2.0 (Pa), Chioce 2 (Ch.2), Glass ionomer GC (GI GC), zinc phosphate Hoffmann’s (ZP hof), zinc polycarboxylate Hoffmann’s (ZPC hof), Glass ionomer ariadent (GI ari), zinc phosphate ariadent (ZP ari) and zinc polycarboxylate ariadent (ZPC ari). The radiopacity of each material along with aluminium step wedge were measured from radiographic images using a digital radiography. The average measured radiopacities from five areas were taken into account, which were measured by Digora for windows (DFW) software using a PSP digital sensor.Results: There was a significant difference between radiopacity value of all luting materials (p≤0.001). ZP ari had the highest radiopacity with 7.7±0.55 mm aluminium. The Glass ionomer ariadent ari dent showed the lowest radiopacity value with 0.82±0.31 mm aluminium.Conclusion: All dental cements showed radiopacity values equivalent to or greater than the ISO 4049:2000 (E) standard except ariadent Glass ionomer; and this could be considered suitable for use in restoration cementation.

Introduction: The aim of the present study was the comparison of radiopacity of different resin cement types using direct digital radiography by calibrating the calculations on the radiogram according to the dead pixel value on the phosphor plate for the first time in literature. Methods: The radiopacities of currently used ten different resin cements(G-CEM, I-CEM, Choice 2, Duo Link, TheraCem, eCEMENT DC, MaxCem Elite Chroma, BisCem, NX3, and Maxcem Elite), enamel and dentin were compared with the densitometer. The digital radiographs were acquired and Image J software was used to convert the images into numerical data for analysis. After the dead pixel calibration, the equivalent aluminum thickness value of each sample was calculated by the correlation analysis method. Results: According to test results, although there was no significant difference between G-CEM and I-CEM, all the materials, enamel and dentin had a significant difference from each other. MaxCem Elite had the highest radiopacity while G-CEM had the lowest. Conclusions: eCEMENT DC, MaxCem Elite Chroma, BisCem, NX3, and Maxcem Elite had higher radiopacity than dentin. Those with lower radiopacity than dentin (G-CEM, I-CEM, Choice 2, Duo Link, and TheraCem) should be carefully used in both subgingival located or radiolucent restorations and implant-supported prostheses. Dead pixel calibration enables materials to be evaluated more accurately and this method will also make it possible for the first time in literature to compare the same samples with each other on different phosphor plates.

Introduction: Endodontic cements are essential materials for achieving successful root canal treatment. Therefore, they must present adequate physicochemical properties to ensure optimal clinical performance. This study aimed to evaluate radiopacity, pH, and calcium ion release of calcium silicate- and epoxy resin-based cements/sealers. Materials and Methods: Four materials were evaluated: Vioseal, AH-Plus, AH-Plus Bioceramic Sealer, and MTA Angelus. Ten cylindrical specimens (10 mm diameter, 1 mm height) per group were prepared for each tested property, totaling 80 samples. The same specimens were used for pH and calcium ion release, while separate specimens were used for radiopacity. All samples were stored at 37°C and 95% humidity. Radiopacity was assessed by digital radiography using an aluminum step wedge (1-10 mm). pH was measured at 1, 7, and 14 days using a calibrated digital pH meter. Calcium ion release was determined using atomic absorption spectrophotometry. Data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and Dwass-Steel-Critchlow-Fligner post hoc tests (P<0.05). Results: Vioseal and AH-Plus showed the highest radiopacity values (9.98±0.42 mm Al and 10.00±0.38 mm Al, respectively), while AH-Plus Bioceramic Sealer (9.04±0.28 mm Al) and MTA Angelus (4.72±0.40 mm Al) showed lower values. Regarding pH, AH-Plus Bioceramic presented the highest and most sustained alkaline value (up to 12.5), and AH-Plus the lowest (6.25±0.26). In calcium ion release, Vioseal showed the highest release on day 7 (29.4±3.12 ppm), while AH-Plus Bioceramic Sealer also peaked on day 7 (18.60±5.54 ppm); MTA Angelus presented its highest release on day 1 (11.80±1.00 ppm). Conclusion: All evaluated cements/sealers met the ISO 6876 standard for radiopacity. Calcium silicate-based cements showed an alkaline pH and sustained calcium ion release, whereas Vioseal presented an initially high and transient release.

Background: Comparing the net setting time and radiopacity of an Iranian glass ionomer cement (GIC) and Fuji II (GC, Japan) according to ISO 9917‑, 1: 2007 standard. Materials and Methods: In this experimental/in vitro study, for both tests, we prepared 20 samples of Fuji II glass ionomer (self‑, cure restorative glass ionomer, batch number: 1608031, GC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) and Iranian glass ionomer (Ava Tajhiz Dandan‑, Iran) at P/L of 2/7: 1. Then, to determine the net setting time, we prepared a metal mold with dimensions of 10 mm in length, 8 mm in width, and 5 mm in height. Ninety seconds after mixing, the surface of the sample was subjected to the indenter, and the net setting time was recorded as the time elapsed between the end of the mixing and the time needle stopped making a complete circular indentation. To determine radiopacity, the specimens were poured into a mold with a diameter of 15 mm and thickness of 1 mm. Samples and a step wedge were irradiated with X‑, rays. Particle size analysis and Energy‑, dispersive X‑, ray spectroscopy (EDS) analysis were also done for both cements. Test results were investigated with SPSS and through independent t‑, test (P < 0. 05). Results: The mean value of net setting time for Fuji II was 4. 83 min and for the Iranian Glass ionomer was 3. 83 min (P < 0. 05). The mean value of radiopacity for Fuji II was 2. 3 mmAL and for Iranian Glass ionomer was 1. 9 mmAl (P < 0. 05). Conclusion: Net setting time and radiopacity of the glass ionomers were within the range of ISO 9917‑, 1: 2007. If all properties of the Iranian cement are set appropriately in future investigations, we propose to use it instead of Fuji II GIC. This has the additional benefit of being cost‑, efficient as Iranian cement costs less than Fuji II cement.