Dental and Medical Problems

Dent Med Probl
Index Copernicus (ICV 2020) – 128.41
MEiN – 70 pts
CiteScore (2021) – 2.0
JCI – 0.5
Average rejection rate (2021) – 81.35%
ISSN 1644-387X (print)
ISSN 2300-9020 (online)
Periodicity – quarterly

Download PDF

Dental and Medical Problems

2018, vol. 55, nr 3, July-September, p. 267–274

doi: 10.17219/dmp/93569

Publication type: original article

Language: English

Download citation:

  • BIBTEX (JabRef, Mendeley)
  • RIS (Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero)

Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 3.0 Open Access

Evaluation of the gray level of restorative materials using cone-beam computed tomography: A cross-sectional study

Ocena poziomu szarości materiałów stomatologicznych w tomografii stożkowej – badanie przekrojowe

Pezhman Hadadi1,A, Farzane Ostovarrad2,B, Ava Nikbin2,D,E,F, Hadi Ranjzad3,B, Farzane Ghasemi4,B, Somayeh Nemati2,B

1 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Rasht, Iran

2 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran

3 Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Anzali, Iran

4 Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran

Abstract

Background. Densitometry plays an important role in the diagnosis and treatment planning. Due to diversity in density, equal amounts of different materials absorb various amounts of X-rays and yield different radiographic views.
Objectives. The aim of this study was to evaluate the gray scales of 5 commercially available restorative materials, including amalgam, composite resin, flowable composite resin, glass-ionomer, and Dycal.
Material and Methods. Samples of the 5 test materials from various manufacturers were prepared, each 5-millimeter-thick. There were 7 glass-ionomer samples and 10 of each of the other materials, making a total of 47 samples in the study. The test materials were scanned using a Kodak cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) unit. Subsequently, the gray scales were determined and evaluated by a radiologist using OnDemand3DTM Dental software and analyzed with SPSS v. 22 software.
Results. Amalgam had a higher gray scale than the other groups of restorative materials. In some cases, it was the same as that of composite resin; however, it was significantly different from gray scales of flowable composite resin, glass-ionomer and Dycal. It was concluded that composite resin and amalgam were high in gray scale, while flowable composite resin, glass-ionomer and Dycal exhibited low gray scales.
Conclusion. Amalgam and composite resin had high gray scales, and glass-ionomer and Dycal exhibited the lowest gray scale values. The findings show that CBCT can be helpful in differentiating amalgam and composite resin from other materials.

Key words

cone-beam computed tomography, dental materials, densitometry

Słowa kluczowe

stożkowa tomografia komputerowa, materiały dentystyczne, densytometria

References (21)

  1. Arisan V, Karabuda ZC, Avsever H, Özdemir T. Conventional multi-slice computed tomography (CT) and cone beam CT (CBCT) for computer assisted implant placement. Part I: Relationship radiographic gray density and implant stability. Clin Impl Dent Rel Res. 2013;15(6):893–906.
  2. Aras MH, Miloglu O, Barutcugil C, Kantarici M, Ozcan E, Harorli A. Comparison of the sensitivity for detecting foreign bodies among conventional plain radiography, computed tomography and ultrasonography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2010;39(2):72–78.
  3. White SC, Pharoah MJ. Oral Radiology: Principles and Interpretation. 5th ed. St. Louis, MO: Mosby; 2009:207–211.
  4. Razi T, Niknami M, Alavi Ghazani F. Relationship between Hounsfield unit in CT scan and gray scale in CBCT. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects. 2014;8(2):107–110.
  5. Katsumata A, Hirukawa A, Okumura S, et al. Relationship between density variability and imaging volume size in cone-beam computerized tomographic scanning of the maxillofacial region: An in vitro study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2009;107(3):420–425.
  6. Lagravère MO, Carey J, Ben-Zvi M, Packota GV, Major PW. Effect of object location on the density measurement and Hounsfield conversion in a NewTom 3G cone beam computed tomography unit. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2008;37(6):305–308.
  7. Oliveria ML, Freitas DQ, Ambrosano GM, Haiter-Neto F. Influence of exposure factors on the variability of CBCT voxel values: A phantom study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2014;43(6):20140128.
  8. Emadi N, Safi Y, Akbarzadeh Bagheban A, Asgary S. Comparison of CT-number and gray scale value of different dental materials and hard tissues in CT and CBCT. Iran Endod J. 2014;9(4):283–286.
  9. Esmaeili F, Johari M, Haddadi P, Vatankhah M. Beam hardening artifacts: Comparison between two cone-beam computed tomography scanners. Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects. 2012;6(2):2–7.
  10. Chindasombatjareon J, Kakimoto N, Murakami S, Maeda Y, Furukawa S. Quantitative analysis of metallic artifacts caused by dental metals: Comparison of cone-beam and multi-detector row CT scanners. Oral Radiol. 2011;27:114–120.
  11. Ludlow JB, Ivanovic M. Comparative dosimetry of dental CBCT devices and 64-slice CT for oral and maxillofacial radiology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2008;106(1):930–938.
  12. Ludlow JB, Davis-Ludlow LE, Brooks SL, Howerton WB. Dosimetry of 3 CBCT devices for oral and maxillofacial radiology: CB Mercuray, NewTom 3G and i-Cat. Dentomaxillofac Radiol.2006;35(4):219–226.
  13. Schulze RK, Berndt D, d’Hoedt B. On cone-beam computed tomography artifacts induced by titanium implants. Clin Oral Implant Res. 2010;21(1):100–107.
  14. Zöller JE, Neugebauer J. Cone-beam Volumetric Imaging in Dental, Oral and Maxillofacial Medicine: Fundamentals, Diagnostics and Treatment Planning. London, UK: Quintessence Publishing; 2008:27–35.
  15. Haristoy RA‚ Valiyaparambil JV‚ Mallya SM. Correlation of CBCT gray scale values with bone densities. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2009;107(4):28–35.
  16. Lachowski KM, Botta SB, Lascala CA, Matos AB, Sobral MA. Study of the radio-opacity of base and liner dental materials using a digital radiography system. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2013;42(2):20120153.
  17. Devito KL, Ortega AI, Haiter Neto F. Radiopacity of calcium hydroxide cement compared with human tooth structure. J Appl Oral Sci. 2004;12(4):290–293.
  18. Pires de Souza FC, Pardini LC, Cruvinel DR, Hamida HM, Garcia LFR.In vitro comparison of the radiopacity of cavity lining materials with human dental structures. J Conserv Dent. 2010;13(2):65–70.
  19. Imperiano MT, Jamil Khoury H, Anjos Pontual ML, Japiassú Resende Montes MA, Fonseca Silveira MM. Comparative radiopacity of four low viscosity composites. Braz J Oral Sci. 2007;6(20):20–26.
  20. Parsa A, Ibrahim N, Hassan B, Motroni A, van der Stelt P, Wismeijer D. Influence of cone beam CT scanning parameters on grey value measurements at an implant site. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2013;42(3):79884780.
  21. Mah P, Reeves TE, McDavid WD. Deriving Hounsfield units using grey levels in cone beam computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2010;39(6):323–335.