Radiopacity of fiber-reinforced resin posts.
OBJECTIVE
(1) To determine the radiopacity of one titanium and seven fiber-reinforced resin posts by densitometric analyses of radiographs, taken from the separate posts and from posts after seating in extracted root-treated human canine teeth with and without a radiopaque luting resin, respectively, and (2) To receive a ranking order by 20 dental practitioners of 16 randomly selected radiographs (2 for each post brand) by radiodensity and by acceptability assessment of the posts' radiographic appearance.


METHODS
One reference titanium post (1) and the following 7 commercial fiber post brands were investigated: AEsthetiPlus/RTD (2), FiberKor/Jeneric Pentron (3), Light-Post/RTD (4), LightPost/Dentatus (5), Mirafit/Hager & Werken (6), Snowlight/Carbotech (7), and Snowpost/Carbotech (8). Standardized radiographs of the separate posts and of posts in extracted canines both before cementation and after cementation with Panavia 21 EX were produced and evaluated densitometrically together with a reference aluminum step-wedge. The cemented posts' radiodensities were determined from radiographs taken without and with 10 mm Plexiglass shielding. The optical densities were recorded in mm Al equivalents. Sixteen radiographs (2 for each post) were presented in random order to 20 dentists for ranking by decreasing radiopacity and by clinical acceptability scores from good (1), adequate (2), acceptable (3), not acceptable (4), to no radiopacity (5) of the posts' radiographic appearance. Statistical evaluation by ANOVA and Duncan post-hoc test at P< 0.05.


RESULTS
Statistically the posts' radiodensities were significantly different. For separate and cemented posts, recorded from radiographs of Plexiglass shielded specimens, respectively, the following Duncan rankings were obtained: 1>7, 8>3>2, 4, 5>6 and 1>7, 8> 3, 5, 2, 6>6, 4. The dentist ranking by radiopacity scores was 1>7, 8>3>5,6>4>2, and by clinical acceptability scores 1>7, 8>3>2, 4, 5, 6. The titanium post (1) and posts 7 and 8 received scores better than acceptable, post 3 was assessed acceptable, whereas posts 2, 4, 5 and 6 were characterized as "not acceptable" or "not radiopaque".
Finger
Werner J
WJ
Department of Preclinical Dentistry, School of Dental Medicine, University of Cologne, Germany. wjfinger@aol.com
Ahlstrand
Wisua M
WM
Fritz
Ulrike B
UB
D015502:Absorptiometry, Photon; D000704:Analysis of Variance; D002484:Cementation; D003188:Composite Resins / Q000737:chemistry*; D003287:Contrast Media; D003481:Cuspid / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging*; D003786:Dental Pulp Cavity / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging; D006801:Humans; D055095:Optics and Photonics; D010710:Phosphates / Q000737:chemistry; D019904:Polymethyl Methacrylate / Q000737:chemistry; D011176:Post and Core Technique / Q000295:instrumentation*; D019279:Resin Cements / Q000737:chemistry; D013223:Statistics as Topic; D014025:Titanium / Q000737:chemistry*; D019553:Tooth, Nonvital / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging
D003188:Composite Resins; D003287:Contrast Media; C113550:FiberKor, sculpture; C093719:Panavia TPN-S; D010710:Phosphates; D019279:Resin Cements; D019904:Polymethyl Methacrylate; D014025:Titanium