Objectives: To visually compare, as a clinician would evaluate them, the radiopacity of seven flowable composites (Tetric Flow, Heliomolar Flow, PermaFlo, Revolution Formula 2, Filtek Flow, Dyract Flow, OmegaFlow) compared to a conventional composite (Tetric Ceram). Methods: One molar tooth was used as the standard. An occlusal round cavity was prepared with a 2.0 mm deep x 3 mm diameter. Round plastic molds 2.5 mm x 1.5 mm were used to fabricate round discs of each material that would fit in the molar preparation. Each sample was light-cured with a Kerr Optilux visible light-curing unit for 40 seconds. The plastic form was stripped away from each sample and the composite sample was gently placed in the bottom of the preparation made in the molar. Each sample was then radiographed (#1 Kodak Ektaspeed plus E speed film) using a Gendex GX-770 unit with an 8-inch tube head length, at 70KVP, at 8 pulses, with a cone head-to-film distance of 15 mm. All radiographs were developed with an Air Techniques A/T 2000 automatic developer at 82 degrees using Kodak Readymatic developer and Fixer. Two evaluators independently scored the clinical radiopacity of the materials using the following criteria: 0=radiolucent (less than dentin); 1=slightly radiopaque (similar to dentin), 2=radiopaque (more than dentin but less than enamel); 3=very radiopaque (similar to enamel); 4=highly radiopaque (more than enamel). Results: The evaluators' consistency using the scoring system was 100%. Tetric Ceram, the control, and PermaFlo and Tetric Flow had radiopacity scores of 4. However, Tetric Ceram was slightly more radiopaque than PermaFlo and Tetric Flow. All other flowables had a score of 3. Conclusions: Tetric Ceram, PermaFlo and Tetric Flow revealed adequate radiopacity to be radiographically recognized as a dental material and not as tooth structure or caries.

Back to the Dental Materials: VIII - Others-Non-metallic Program
Back to the IADR/AADR/CADR 80th General Session (March 6-9, 2002)

Top Level Search