Vicente Vega; Sylvia Osorio; Juan Estay; José Farfán; Constanza Quintana & Camila Corral
Summary
An adequate radiopacity of materials for provisionalization allows its proper evaluation on the radiographicexam. However, there is a lack of knowledge about compliance with the requirements established by the ISO 4049 norm. The aim of this study was to determine the radiopacity of provisionalization materials available in the national market and verify if they comply with the minimum requirements of ISO regulations. An in vitro experimental study was carried out, samples of 10 mm in diameter and 1 mm thickness of acrylic resins: Self-Cure Acrylic (Marché®), Duralay (Reliance), Caulkâ (Dentsply), Alike™ (GC) and by sacrilic resins: Protemp™4 (3M), Luxatemp Star (DMG), Luxacrown (DMG), Structur Premium (VOCO), ExperTemp™ (Ultradent),Acrytemp (Zhermack) were prepared. The samples were x-rayed together with a stepped aluminum wedge. The images were analyzed to determine the gray scale value and its equivalent value in mm of Aluminum. The data was analyzed to verify compliance with the ISO standard. Statistically significant differences were found. The equivalent radiopacity of acrylicresins in mm of Al in descending order was 0.85± 0.08 for ALIKE™, 0.72 ± 0.32 for acrylic Marché®, 0.65 ± 0.25 forCaulkâ and 0.56 ± 0.05 forDuralay, all being less than the required by norm. The equivalent radiopacity of by sacrilic resins was 1.75 ± 0.2 for Acrytemp, 1.51± 0.27 for Luxacrown, 1.47 ± 0.14 for Structur Premium, 1.43 ± 0.23 for LuxatempStar, 1.02 ± 0.28 forProtemp™4 and 1± 0.1 forExperTemp™,which are greater than the requirements. In conclusion, the bisacrylic resins evaluated in this study comply with the radiopacity standard, however the acrylic resins evaluated do not comply.
KEY WORDS: radiopacity, dental materials, acrylicresin.
How to cite this article
VEGA, V.; OSORIO, S.; ESTAY, J.; FARFÁN, J.; QUINTANA, C. & CORRAL, C. Radiopacity of acrylic and bisacrylicresinsused as provisionalrestorations. Int. J. Odontostomat., 15(1):119-124, 2021.