In vitro radiographic density of dental posts measured by digital radiography

Radiopacity of Esthetic Post Materials: Evaluation with Digital Analysis Technique

“…Similar results were reported by Goracci et al (DT Light‐Post, 2.79 mmAl; FRC‐Postec, 4.06 mmAl) and Rodrigues et al (DT Light‐Post, 8.70 mmAl). The radiopacity values of the materials in the present study were lower than those of Rodrigues et al, Medigovic and Antonijevic, and Goracci et al, possibly due to variations in measurement methods (conventional radiographic system or digital system) and image detectors, differences in distance between film and post, and differences in irradiation time . On the other hand, the radiopacity of dentin observed in the present study was 0.968 mmAl, in accordance with results reported in the literature .…”

“…Consistent with the present study, Kaval et al reported that their tested post materials (CosmoPost, UniCore, DT Light‐Post, FRC‐Postec) had higher radiopacity values than that of equivalent Al. Medigovic and Antonijevic investigated the radiopacities of different dental post materials, including FRC‐Postec and CosmoPost, and they found that compared to dentin, FRC‐Postec (3.94 mmAl) and CosmoPost (12.53 mmAl) post specimens demonstrated significantly higher radiopacity values compared to dentin. Similar results were reported by Goracci et al (DT Light‐Post, 2.79 mmAl; FRC‐Postec, 4.06 mmAl) and Rodrigues et al (DT Light‐Post, 8.70 mmAl).…”

“…The digital radiographic system was preferred to achieve the optimal gray‐pixel values for radiopacity, as suggested in previous studies . This method produces a more consistent image that might even eliminate the need to use an Al‐SW, as long as the film‐target distance and exposure settings are kept constant .…”

“…To assess the integrity of restorations and the development of secondary caries, posts should be sufficiently radiopaque to be detected against a background of enamel and/or dentin . Thus, as reported for dental restorative materials, the radiopacity of a post affected by chemical composition and radiopaque elements should be different from that of enamel and dentin, so that optimum contrast can be achieved for the accurate diagnosis of secondary caries and voids .…”

“…17 To assess the integrity of restorations and the development of secondary caries, posts should be sufficiently radiopaque to be detected against a background of enamel and/or dentin. [18][19][20][21][22][23][24] Thus, as reported for dental restorative materials, 25 the radiopacity of a post affected by chemical composition and radiopaque elements 22 should be different from that of enamel and dentin, [18][19][20][21][22][23][24] so that optimum contrast can be achieved for the accurate diagnosis of secondary caries and voids. 25 Conventional and digital radiographs are frequently used for assessing the radiopacity of posts, 20 which is usually determined in comparison with enamel, dentin, or aluminum (Al), as the radiopacity of dentin is close to that of Al of the same thickness, and enamel has approximately twice the radiopacity of Al with the same thickness.…”