English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Objective: this study aimed to assess the radiopacity of eight composite resins recommended for class II restorations. Materials and method: hence, 2 mm thick and 4 mm in diameter test specimens were made and compared to enamel, dentin, and aluminum using four digital systems: two semi-direct by storage phosphor image plates (SPIP) - Digora™, and DenOptix™, two charged couple devices (CCD) - Sens-A-Ray™ and Computerized Dental Radiograph (CDR™), and radiographic film Kodak Insight IS-21™. The radiographs were scanned to obtain the indirect digital image, and along with direct and semi-direct digital images the radiographic densities were assessed in specific software. The pixel values from the aluminum step wedge were submitted to a linear regression from where the equivalent in millimeters for enamel, dentin, and resins were determined. Results: density means of resins were equal or superior to the means obtained for enamel in all digital systems and the conventional film. SureFil™ resin presented greater numerical radiopacity in all digital systems and the radiographic film. ALERT™ resin showed the smallest radiopacity among the studied resins in all digital systems and radiographic film. ALERT™ and Definite™ were statistically equivalent to enamel in the Sens-A-Ray™ system and in radiographic film. The remaining resins (Charisma™, FillMagic™, P60™, Prodigy™, SureFil™, and Z250™) presented higher radiopacities in comparison to enamel. Only ALERT™ presented radiopacity similar to enamel in other digital systems (CDR™, DenOptix™, and Digora™). In these digital systems, Charisma™, Definite™, FillMagic™, P60™, Prodigy™, SureFil™, and Z250™ were more radiopaque than enamel. Conclusion: all resins showed equal or higher radiopacities of enamel in all assessment systems. There was a statistical correlation between systems CDR™ and Sens-A-Ray™, and between Digora™ and DenOptix™; Sens-A-Ray™ also showed correlation with radiographic film. The percentage of density means equivalent to aluminum millimeters for enamel and dentin were 119.6% and 101.6%, respectively.

Radiopacity assessment of composite resins through digital systems and InSight intraoral film