Endodontide kullanılan farklı biyomateryallerin radyoopasitelerinin karşılaştırılması
Küçük Resim Yok
Tarih
2022
Yazarlar
Dergi Başlığı
Dergi ISSN
Cilt Başlığı
Yayıncı
Ege Üniversitesi
Erişim Hakkı
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
Özet
Çalışmamızın amacı farklı firmalar tarafından üretilen endodontik biyoseramiklerin radyoopasitelerinin dijital radyografik görüntüler üzerinde karşılaştırılmasıdır. Çalışmamızda test materyalleri üretici firmaların önerileri doğrultusunda hazırlanarak 5 mm çapında 1 mm yüksekliğinde standart silindirik kalıpların içine yerleştirildi ve etüvde 48 saat inkübe edildi. Obje-ışın kaynağı mesafesi 30 cm olacak şekilde ayarlandı ve fosfor plaklar 60 kVp, 7 mA'da 0.32 sn süre ile ışınlandı. Plaklar daha sonra tarayıcı ile taranarak elde edilen görüntüler kaydedildi. Her test örneğinin, dentinin ve alüminyum step-wedge'in her basamağının ortalama gri değerleri (MGV) bir bilgisayar programının histogram özelliği kullanılarak değerlendirildi ve Excel yazılımı kullanılarak penetrometre üzerinden Al mm eşdeğerlerine dönüştürüldü. İstatistiksel analizler IBM SPSS Statistics 25,0 programı kullanılarak gerçekleştirildi. Biodentine materyalinin radyoopasite ortalama değeri diğer tüm test materyallerinden istatistiksel olarak anlamlı düzeyde düşük olarak görüldü (p<0,05). MM-MTA materyalinin radyoopasite ortalama değeri ile MTA Angelus ve Endoart MTA materyalleri arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark bulunamadı (p>0,05), diğer materyallerle ise arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı düzeyde farklı bulundu (p<0,05). Tehnodent Rootdent materyalinin radyoopasite ortalama değeri diğer tüm materyallerden istatistiksel olarak anlamlı düzeyde farklı görüldü (p<0,05). MTA BioRep materyalinin radyoopasite ortalama değeri diğer tüm materyallerden istatistiksel olarak anlamlı düzeyde farklı bulundu (p<0,05). MTA Angelus materyalinin radyoopasite ortalama değeri ile MM-MTA, ProRoot MTA, Bio MTA+ ve Endoart MTA materyalleri arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı fark görülmedi (p>0,05); Biodentine, Tehnodent Rootdent, MTA BioRep ve dentin gruplarıyla arasında ise istatistiksel olarak anlamlı düzeyde farklılık görüldü (p<0,05). ProRoot MTA materyalinin radyoopasite ortalama değeri ile MTA Angelus, Bio MTA+ ve Endoart MTA materyalleri arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark bulunamadı (p>0,05); Biodentine, MM-MTA, Tehnodent Rootdent, MTA BioRep ve dentin arasında ise istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark bulundu (p<0,05). Bio MTA+ materyalinin radyoopasite ortalama değeri ile MTA Angelus ve ProRoot MTA materyalleri arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark bulunamadı (p>0,05); Biodentine, MM-MTA, Tehnodent Rootdent, MTA BioRep, Endoart MTA ve dentinden istatistiksel olarak anlamlı düzeyde farklı bulundu (p<0,05). Endoart MTA materyalinin radyoopasite ortalama değeri ile MM-MTA, MTA Angelus ve ProRoot MTA materyalleri arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark görülmedi (p>0,05); Biodentine, Tehnodent Rootdent, MTA BioRep, Bio MTA+ ve dentin gruplarıyla ise istatistiksel olarak anlamlı düzeyde farklı bulundu (p<0,05). Bütün materyallerin radyoopasite değerleri istatistiksel olarak anlamlı şekilde dentin dokusundan daha yüksekti (p<0,05). Çalışmaya dahil edilen tüm materyaller ISO standardına uygun bir radyoopasite sergilerken kendi içlerinde farklı radyoopasite değerleri göstermiştir. Materyaller arasında ProRoot MTA 8,09±0,58 mm Al ile en yüksek radyoopasite değerine sahipken, Biodentine 4,10±0,28 mm Al ile en düşük radyoopasite değerini gösterdi. Tüm materyaller dentin dokusundan daha yüksek radyoopasite gösterdi
The aim of our study is to compare the radiopacities of endodontic bioceramics produced by different companies on digital radiographic images. In our study, the test materials were prepared in accordance with the recommendations of the manufacturers, placed in standard cylindrical molds with a diameter of 5 mm and a height of 1 mm and incubated in an oven for 48 hours. The object-beam source distance was adjusted to be 30 cm and the phosphor plates were irradiated at 60 kVp, 7 mA for 0.32 seconds. The plates were then scanned with the scanner and the images obtained were recorded. The mean gray values ??(MGV) of each step of each test specimen, dentin, and aluminum step-wedge were evaluated using the histogram feature of a computer program and converted to Al mm equivalents via the penetrometer using Excel software. Statistical analyzes were performed using the IBM SPSS Statistics 25.0 program. The mean radiopacity value of the biodentine material was statistically significantly lower than all other test materials (p<0.05). No statistically significant difference was found between the mean radiopacity value of the MM-MTA material and MTA Angelus and Endoart MTA materials (p>0.05), it was found to be statistically different from other materials (p<0.05). The mean radiopacity value of the Tehnodent Rootdent material was statistically significantly different from all other materials (p<0.05). The mean radiopacity value of MTA BioRep material was found to be statistically significantly different from all other materials (p<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between the mean radiopacity value of the MTA Angelus material and the MM-MTA, ProRoot MTA, Bio MTA+ and Endoart MTA materials (p>0.05); There was a statistically significant difference between Biodentine, Tehnodent Rootdent, MTA BioRep and dentin groups (p<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between the mean radiopacity value of ProRoot MTA material and MTA Angelus, Bio MTA+ and Endoart MTA materials (p>0.05); A statistically significant difference was found between Biodentine, MM-MTA, Tehnodent Rootdent, MTA BioRep and dentin (p<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between the mean radiopacity value of Bio MTA+ material and MTA Angelus and ProRoot MTA materials (p>0.05); Biodentine was statistically different from MM-MTA, Tehnodent Rootdent, MTA BioRep, Endoart MTA and dentin (p<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between the mean radiopacity value of Endoart MTA material and MM-MTA, MTA Angelus and ProRoot MTA materials (p>0.05); There were statistically significant differences between Biodentine, Tehnodent Rootdent, MTA BioRep, Bio MTA+ and dentin groups (p<0.05). Radiopacity values ??of all materials were statistically significantly higher than dentin tissue (p<0.05). While all the materials included in the study exhibited a radiopacity in accordance with the ISO standard, they showed different radiopacity values ??within themselves. Among the materials, ProRoot MTA had the highest radiopacity value with 8.09±0.58 mm Al, while Biodentine showed the lowest radiopacity value with 4.10±0.28 mm Al. All materials showed higher radiopacity than dentin tissue.
The aim of our study is to compare the radiopacities of endodontic bioceramics produced by different companies on digital radiographic images. In our study, the test materials were prepared in accordance with the recommendations of the manufacturers, placed in standard cylindrical molds with a diameter of 5 mm and a height of 1 mm and incubated in an oven for 48 hours. The object-beam source distance was adjusted to be 30 cm and the phosphor plates were irradiated at 60 kVp, 7 mA for 0.32 seconds. The plates were then scanned with the scanner and the images obtained were recorded. The mean gray values ??(MGV) of each step of each test specimen, dentin, and aluminum step-wedge were evaluated using the histogram feature of a computer program and converted to Al mm equivalents via the penetrometer using Excel software. Statistical analyzes were performed using the IBM SPSS Statistics 25.0 program. The mean radiopacity value of the biodentine material was statistically significantly lower than all other test materials (p<0.05). No statistically significant difference was found between the mean radiopacity value of the MM-MTA material and MTA Angelus and Endoart MTA materials (p>0.05), it was found to be statistically different from other materials (p<0.05). The mean radiopacity value of the Tehnodent Rootdent material was statistically significantly different from all other materials (p<0.05). The mean radiopacity value of MTA BioRep material was found to be statistically significantly different from all other materials (p<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between the mean radiopacity value of the MTA Angelus material and the MM-MTA, ProRoot MTA, Bio MTA+ and Endoart MTA materials (p>0.05); There was a statistically significant difference between Biodentine, Tehnodent Rootdent, MTA BioRep and dentin groups (p<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between the mean radiopacity value of ProRoot MTA material and MTA Angelus, Bio MTA+ and Endoart MTA materials (p>0.05); A statistically significant difference was found between Biodentine, MM-MTA, Tehnodent Rootdent, MTA BioRep and dentin (p<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between the mean radiopacity value of Bio MTA+ material and MTA Angelus and ProRoot MTA materials (p>0.05); Biodentine was statistically different from MM-MTA, Tehnodent Rootdent, MTA BioRep, Endoart MTA and dentin (p<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between the mean radiopacity value of Endoart MTA material and MM-MTA, MTA Angelus and ProRoot MTA materials (p>0.05); There were statistically significant differences between Biodentine, Tehnodent Rootdent, MTA BioRep, Bio MTA+ and dentin groups (p<0.05). Radiopacity values ??of all materials were statistically significantly higher than dentin tissue (p<0.05). While all the materials included in the study exhibited a radiopacity in accordance with the ISO standard, they showed different radiopacity values ??within themselves. Among the materials, ProRoot MTA had the highest radiopacity value with 8.09±0.58 mm Al, while Biodentine showed the lowest radiopacity value with 4.10±0.28 mm Al. All materials showed higher radiopacity than dentin tissue.
Açıklama
Anahtar Kelimeler
Diş Hekimliği, Dentistry
