Evaluation of low-contrast perceptibility in dental restorative materials under the influence of ambient light conditions

This study aimed to assess how details on dental restorative composites with different radio-opacities are perceived under the influence of ambient light. Resin composite step wedges (six steps, each 1-mm thick) were custom manufactured from three materials, respectively: (M1) Filtek™ Z350 (3M/ESPE,...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Dento-maxillo-facial radiology 2015-05, Vol.44 (5), p.20140360-20140360
Hauptverfasser: Cruz, A D, Lobo, I C, Lemos, A L B, Aguiar, M F
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:This study aimed to assess how details on dental restorative composites with different radio-opacities are perceived under the influence of ambient light. Resin composite step wedges (six steps, each 1-mm thick) were custom manufactured from three materials, respectively: (M1) Filtek™ Z350 (3M/ESPE, Saint Paul, MN); (M2) Prisma AP.H™ (Dentsply International Inc., Brazil) and (M3) Glacier(®) (SDI Limited, Victoria, Australia). Each step of the manufactured wedge received three standardized drillings of different diameters and depths. An aluminium (Al) step wedge with 12 steps (1-mm thick) was used as an internal standard to calculate the radio-opacity as pixel intensity values. Standardized digital images of the set were obtained, and 11 observers independently recorded the images, noting the number of noticeable details (drillings) under 2 dissimilar conditions: in a light environment (light was turned on in the room) and in low-light conditions (light in the room was turned off). The differences between images in terms of the number of details that were observed were statistically compared using ANOVA, Cronbach's alpha coefficient and Wilcoxon and Kruskal-Wallis tests, with a significance level setting of 5% (α = 0.05). The M2 showed higher radio-opacity, the M1 displayed intermediate radio-opacity and the M3 showed lower radio-opacity, respectively; however, all three were without significance (p > 0.05) compared with each other. The differences in radio-opacity resulted in a significant variation (p 
ISSN:0250-832X
1476-542X
DOI:10.1259/dmfr.20140360