Comparison of the radiopacity of pulp capping materials

Abstract

Background/purpose:

This study aimed to compare the radiopacity of pulp capping materials with that of dental hard tissues. In this study, the radiopacity of traditional and contemporary pulp capping materials was examined and compared with that of dental hard tissues and an aluminum step wedge.

Materials and methods:

Eight pulp capping materials were used in the study. Ten disk-shaped specimens, each 1 mm thick and 5 mm in diameter, were prepared from each material. Ten specimens from each material were placed on a photostimulable phosphor (PSP) plate system together with a tooth slice and the aluminum stepwedge. The images were analyzed with a software program (Adobe Photoshop) to measure mean gray values (MGVs). A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine whether there were significant differences among the groups. Tukey’s test was applied for pairwise comparisons (p < 0.05).

Results:

All materials used in the study showed greater radiopacity than dentin. BiOfactor, Dycal, MTA Angelus, ProRoot MTA were more radiopaque than enamel, while the other materials showed lower radiopacity than enamel. The radiopacity values of the materials were found as follows: Dentin < MTA CEM LC < Calcimol LC < Biodentin < TheraCal LC < Enamel < Dycal < BiOfactor < MTA Angelus < ProRoot MTA.

Conclusion:

The materials examined were found to be more radiopaque than dentin. This may allow a more objective evaluation in radiographic examinations. However, in radiographic images in which enamel is superimposed, materials that do not exhibit greater radiopacity than enamel may complicate radiographic assessment.

Keywords

radiopacity digital radiography system pulp capping materials

Introduction

Pulp capping is a treatment approach used to preserve the vitality and function of the pulp and maintain the integrity of the pulp–dentin complex.^1,2 Preserving pulp vitality protects the patient’s overall health and prevents the need for more complex procedures such as root canal therapy. Pulp capping is carried out by first removing carious tissue, followed by the application of protective materials over the exposed pulp tissue or the deep dentin base.³ Today, various materials are used for pulp capping. Radiographic distinction of the applied restorative materials from dentin and pulp tissue is crucial for assessing, monitoring, and identifying the formation of tertiary dentin. Radiopaque components are added by the manufacturer to allow these materials to be distinguished on radiographs (Table 1).

Table 1.

Advantages and limitations of commonly used radiopacifying agents in dental materials.

Compound	Advantages	Disadvantages
Bismuth oxide (Bi₂O₃)	- Provides high radiopacity - Easily available and inexpensive	- May cause discoloration - May negatively affect the setting reaction - Risk of cytotoxicity at high doses
Zirconium oxide (ZrO₂)	- High biocompatibility - Chemically inert - Increases mechanical strength	- Does not provide radiopacity as high as bismuth oxide - Powder particle dispersion may reduce workability
Barium glass	- Increases radiopacity - Suitable for esthetic materials as it integrates into the glass matrix	- May exhibit dissolution risk upon moisture exposure (in some formulations)
Strontium glass	- Enhances radiopacity - May contribute to fluoride release - Anti-cariogenic effect	- Radiopacity is lower than that of barium
Ytterbium trifluoride (YbF₃)	- High atomic number → firm radiopacity - Biocompatible - Maintains translucency in esthetic composites	- Expensive - Homogeneous distribution of the powder may pose challenges during manufacturing
Titanium oxide (TiO₂)	- Provides white coloration in composite resins for esthetic purposes and increases radiopacity	- Alone, it does not provide radiopacity as high as barium, strontium, or zirconium compounds

Radiopacity refers to the opacity value of a material, such as a tooth, caries, or a prosthetic application, on a radiograph. Radiopacity is a fundamental property of materials used in dentistry. It is achieved through fillers that absorb X-rays, such as strontium, zirconium, barium, and ytterbium.^4,5 Although the radiopacity of a material depends on the type and amount of filler content, it is also influenced by the standards of radiographic imaging.⁶

Accordingly, international standards such as ISO 4049 and ISO 6876 specify minimum radiopacity thresholds to ensure that dental materials can be reliably distinguished from surrounding anatomical structures, particularly dentin. Failure to meet these thresholds may compromise diagnostic accuracy and clinical follow-up.⁷

Digital radiography is an imaging system that has replaced conventional radiographs, enabling image processing while offering faster and easier use compared to traditional methods.⁸

Direct or indirect methods can be used to measure the radiopacity of dental materials. In the direct method, digital sensors or photostimulable phosphor plates are used.⁹ The indirect method involves converting conventional radiographs into digital signals using a high-resolution scanner or a digital camera, followed by transforming the obtained image into numericaldata.^10,11

In conventional radiographs, a photodensitometer is used to determine the optical density units of materials, and an aluminum step wedge is employed.¹² In digital radiographs and digital images, specific software programs (e.g. ImageJ, Adobe Photoshop) are used to obtain grayscale values. The next step is to calculate the radiopacity values of materials in terms of their equivalent aluminum thickness in millimeters. An et al. equation is used to determine the aluminum thickness comparable to the grayscale value of the material on the radiograph.¹³ However, despite methodological advances, significant variability persists among studies due to differences in imaging parameters (e.g. exposure settings, sensor type), calibration techniques, and data analysis protocols. This heterogeneity complicates direct comparison of reported radiopacity values and may obscure clinically relevant differences among materials.

Various capping materials are preferred in vital pulp therapies. Dycal, used in this study, is a calcium hydroxide–based protective material. Its favorable properties include its neutralizing effect against acids, antibacterial activity, ability to stimulate secondary dentin formation, radiopacity, and ease and speed of application. It appears radiopaque on radiographs due to the presence of titanium oxide particles.¹⁴

TheraCal LC is a resin-modified, light-cured, calcium-silicate-based capping material. It can be used for direct or indirect pulp capping. It serves as a barrier and protective agent for the pulp. Its composition includes calcium oxide, calcium silicate, strontium, silica, barium sulfate, barium zirconate, Bis-GMA, and polymethacrylate. TheraCal LC releases calcium at a significant level. Its radiopacity is achieved using barium sulfate and barium zirconate.¹⁵

MTA Angelus is a capping material whose principal components include tricalcium silicate, tricalcium aluminate, tricalcium oxide, and silicate oxide. It is used for root canal furcation perforations, internal resorption, pulpotomy, and direct or indirect pulp capping. Bismuth oxide particles provide their radiopacity.¹⁶

MTA Cem LC is a newly developed, light-cured, resin-modified, tricalcium silicate–based material designed for use as a base/liner beneath composite, amalgam, cement, and other restorative materials, and for direct and indirect pulp capping. Barium sulfate particles provide high radiopacity.¹⁷

Biodentine has enhanced physical and biological properties due to its reduced particle size and the incorporation of zirconium oxide, calcium chloride, and a water-soluble polymer. It has a high clinical success rate in indirect pulp capping. Zirconium oxide, due to its composition, provides radiopacity.¹⁸

The main components of BiOfactor MTA powder are tricalcium and dicalcium silicate, tricalcium aluminate, and ytterbium oxide powder; the liquid is a demineralized water solution containing 0.5%–3% water-soluble carboxylated polymers. According to the manufacturer, the advantages of BiOfactor MTA include rapid hydration, ease of use, good sealing ability, short setting time, color stability, and low cost. Ytterbium oxide particles provide radiopacity.¹⁹

Calcimol LC is a light-cured, calcium hydroxide–based liner/cover material. It is used in dentistry, particularly for pulp capping. It contains calcium hydroxide and forms a dentin-like layer upon hardening. The radiopacity of Calcimol LC is due to radiopaque fillers such as barium glass and ytterbium trifluoride.²⁰

ProRoot MTA is a biocompatible root-end filling and pulp-capping material used in dentistry. ProRoot MTA is the most well-known commercial form of MTA. It is radiopaque, with radiopacity provided by bismuth oxide in its composition.²¹

Although numerous studies have investigated the radiopacity of individual pulp capping materials, direct comparisons across a broad range of both conventional and newly developed materials remain limited. Furthermore, inconsistencies in experimental design and reporting hinder the establishment of a clear hierarchy of radiopacity performance. Therefore, there is a need for a standardized, comparative evaluation that includes both widely used and recently introduced materials under uniform experimental conditions. Such an approach would provide more reliable data for clinicians and contribute to evidence-based material selection.

Pulp capping materials possess different radiopacity values. Further research is needed on newly available materials. Therefore, this study aimed to analyze the degree of radiopacity of various capping materials (Biodentine, BiOfactor MTA, Calcimol LC, Dycal, MTA Angelus, MTA CEM LC, ProRoot MTA, TheraCal LC) using a digital radiographic system.

It is anticipated that the findings of this study will help clarify the radiographic detectability of these materials and support clinicians in selecting materials that meet both diagnostic and clinical requirements. The null hypothesis of this study is that there is no significant difference in radiopacity among pulp capping materials.

Material and method

This study was approved by the Adiyaman University Research Ethics Committee (Decision No: 2025/6-38).

Preparation of samples

The sample size was determined based on an a priori power analysis performed using G*Power software. Considering a one-way ANOVA design with eight groups, a significance level of 0.05, and a statistical power of 80%, the minimum required sample size per group was calculated to detect a moderate effect size. Based on this analysis, a sample size of n = 10 per group was deemed sufficient.

Using a cylindrical mold, cavities measuring 5 mm in diameter and 1 mm in thickness were created. Biodentin, BiOfactor MTA, Dycal, MTA Angelus, and ProRoot MTA were prepared according to the manufacturers’ instructions. Each material was then placed into the mold as a single mass using a non-adhesive spatula. A glass slab was positioned over the mold with gentle pressure to obtain a smooth, homogeneous surface free of air bubbles. The samples were incubated at 37°C and 95% humidity for 24 h. They were then removed from the mold, and their diameters and thicknesses were measured using a caliper.

Samples prepared with Calcimol LC, MTA CEM LC, and TheraCal LC were polymerized for 20 s using a 3 m ESPE Elipar unit (1200 mW/cm²). After removal from the cylindrical mold, the thickness of each sample was measured using a digital caliper with a tolerance of ± 0.01 mm (Table 2).

Table 2.

Materials used in the study and their manufacturer-provided composition.

Materials	Components	Manufacturer	LOT number
Biodentine	Powder: Tricalcium silicate, dicalcium silicate, calcium carbonate, calcium oxide, zirconium oxide (as radiopacifier). Liquid: Water, calcium chloride	Septodont, France	B31840
BiOfactor MTA	Powder: Tricalcium silicate, dicalcium silicate, tricalcium aluminate, ytterbium oxide (as radiopacifier). Liquid: 0.3%–0.5% water-soluble carboxylated polymer, demineralized water	Imicryl, Türkiye	222S999
Calcimol LC	Urethane dimethacrylate resin, calcium dihydroxide, dimethylaminoethyl-methacrylate, TEGDMA	VOCO, Germany	2339139
Dycal	1,3-butylene glycol disalicylate, zinc oxide, calcium phosphate, calcium tungstate, iron oxide pigments; catalyst paste (calcium hydroxide, N-ethyl-o/p-toluene sulfonamide, zinc oxide, titanium oxide)	Dentsply, Germany	60523
MTA Angelus	Powder: Tricalcium silicate, dicalcium silicate, tricalcium aluminate, ferroaluminate, tricalcium, calcium oxide, bismuth oxide. Liquid: Distilled water	Angelus, Brazil	60045
MTA CEM LC	Bis-GMA, CaO, silica, barium sulfate	Nexobıo, Korea	LC210714
ProRoot MTA	Powder: Calcium phosphate, calcium oxide, silica, bismuth oxide	Dentsply, Germany	0000301575
TheraCal LC	Portland Type III cement, poly (ethylene glycol) dimethacrylate, Bis-GMA, barium zirconate	Bisco, U.S.A.	230010466

For comparison, a freshly extracted human molar tooth was used to obtain a 1 mm–thick section consisting of enamel, dentin, and pulp (n:10). Newly extracted third molars without caries, cracks, or restorations were selected for the preparation of the enamel and dentin slices. Soft-tissue debris, bone fragments, and calculus were removed using periodontal instruments, after which the teeth were thoroughly cleaned, rinsed with distilled water, and immersed in sodium hypochlorite solution for 10 min. The crowns were sectioned longitudinally using a microcut device (Micracut 151, Metkon, Bursa, Türkiye) to obtain 1 mm slices. The specimens were stored at room temperature until radiographic procedures were performed.

Radiographic examination

The samples were placed at a standard focal distance of 30 cm. Digital images were obtained using a Planmeca ProX (Planmeca, Helsinki, Finland) X-ray unit with exposure parameters of 8 mA, 70 kV, and 0.2 s. A total of nine radiographic exposures were performed, comprising eight material groups and one tooth slice group. In each exposure, 10 specimens from the respective group, together with a 10-step aluminum stepwedge (99.5% pure aluminum with 1 mm increments), were simultaneously positioned on the digital sensor. This procedure was repeated using different specimens for each exposure to achieve a total sample size of n = 10 per group.

All radiographic images were analyzed by the same researcher using Adobe Photoshop (CS3) software to measure Mean Gray Values (MGVs). Measurements were performed twice on 10 radiographic images by an experienced researcher. The first and second measurements were conducted 2 weeks apart. The intraclass correlation coefficient for intra-rater reliability was found to be 0.998. Radiopacity measurements were made at three different points on each sample, and the mean of these measurements was recorded as the final Mean Gray Value for each specimen to be used in the statistical analysis. Care was taken to perform measurements only in areas free of air bubbles, voids, or other defects. The same procedure was also applied to different points of the tooth specimen.

Radiopacity values obtained from grayscale images were converted into equivalent aluminum thickness (mm Al) for all tested materials. For this purpose, radiopacity was measured at each step of the aluminum stepwedge on the radiograph. A calibration curve was generated based on step thickness, and a regression equation (Y = a + bX) was derived, where Y represents the measured radiopacity (MGV), a is the regression constant, b is the slope, and X represents the step thickness (mm Al). The aluminum-equivalent thickness (X) for each material was calculated using the equation X = (Y − a) / b.

Statistical analysis

Data were analyzed using the SPSS 20 software package. The normality of data distribution was confirmed using the Shapiro–Wilk test, and homogeneity of variances was evaluated using Levene’s test. Radiopacity values of the materials were evaluated using one-way ANOVA. A statistically significant difference was found among the groups. To determine which groups differed, a post-hoc Tukey test was performed. The level of statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.

Results

The mean gray values and corresponding equivalent aluminum thickness values (mm Al ± standard deviation) of all evaluated materials are presented in Table 3. The radiographic appearance of the evaluated materials is presented in Figure 1.

Table 3.

Mean gray values and corresponding equivalent aluminum thickness (mm Al) of the evaluated materials.

Materials	Gray valueMean ± SD	Equivalent aluminum value (mm Al)Mean ± SD
Biodentin	25.33 ± 2.97	1.86 ± 0.51^c
BiOfactor	39.86 ± 2.22	4.87 ± 0.46^e
Calcimol LC	22.86 ± 3.80	1.30 ± 0.80^{b c}
Dycal	30.66 ± 3.53	2.90 ± 0.70^d
MTA Angelus	44.73 ± 2.81	5.80 ± 0.60^f
MTA CEM LC	22.53 ± 4.02	1.28 ± 0.83^b
ProRoot MTA	49.13 ± 2.40	6.70 ± 0.50^g
TheraCal LC	26.06 ± 2.36	2.01 ± 0.49^c
Enamel	29.80 ± 3.12	2.70 ± 0.70^d
Dentin	18.50 ± 0.97	0.44 ± 0.20^a

Superscript letters indicate statistically significant differences within the same column (p < 0.05)

Figure 1.

Radiographic appearance of materials used in the study, evaluated in the context of pulp capping applications (1: Biodentin, 2: BiOfactor MTA, 3: MTA Angelus, 4: ProRoot MTA, 5: MTA CEM LC, 6: Calcimol LC, 7: TheraCal LC, 8: Dycal, 9: Enamel, 10: Dentin).

A statistically significant difference in radiopacity was observed among all groups (p < 0.05). ProRoot MTA demonstrated the highest radiopacity (6.70 ± 0.50 mm Al), followed by MTA Angelus (5.80 ± 0.60 mm Al) and BiOfactor MTA (4.87 ± 0.46 mm Al), with all three materials differing significantly from the other groups (p < 0.05).

Dycal (2.90 ± 0.70 mm Al) showed radiopacity comparable to enamel (2.70 ± 0.70 mm Al), with no statistically significant difference between them (p > 0.05). In contrast, TheraCal LC (2.01 ± 0.49 mm Al), Biodentine (1.86 ± 0.51 mm Al), and Calcimol LC (1.30 ± 0.80 mm Al) exhibited similar radiopacity values, forming a homogeneous subgroup (p > 0.05), while remaining significantly different from higher radiopacity materials.

MTA CEM LC (1.28 ± 0.83 mm Al) showed radiopacity values comparable to Calcimol LC (p > 0.05), but significantly lower than most other materials, including enamel (p < 0.05). Dentin exhibited the lowest radiopacity (0.44 ± 0.20 mm Al) and differed significantly from all other groups (p < 0.05).

Overall, the radiopacity values of the tested materials increased in the following order: Dentin < MTA CEM LC < Calcimol LC < Biodentine < TheraCal LC < Enamel < Dycal < BiOfactor MTA < MTA Angelus < ProRoot MTA.

Discussion

Radiopacity is a critical property that enables restorative materials to be distinguished from surrounding tissues on radiographic images, allowing for the radiographic evaluation of treatment boundaries, condensation quality, and overall restoration integrity. Direct pulp-capping materials must be radiopaque to assess restoration quality effectively.²² A material’s radiopacity is determined by the type and amount of filler it contains, as well as its thickness. For this reason, international standards for the radiopacity of restorative materials recommend preparing standard disks using molds.²³ In this study, standardized specimens were prepared using Teflon molds in accordance with previously established methodologies. As reported by Tagger and Katz, small-diameter specimens permit detailed examination under high magnification and allow direct measurement of images in digital environments. Unlike methods using optical densitometers, this approach enables measurements on homogeneous areas, reducing the influence of local irregularities that may not be visible to the naked eye.²⁴

To evaluate the radiopacity of dental materials, specimens of standard thickness are compared with aluminum step wedges under standardized radiographic exposure conditions. In our study, a 30 cm object–focus distance was maintained, identical exposure parameters were applied, and an aluminum block with 1 mm increments was used, extending up to a total height of 12 mm. The ANSI/ADA recommends aluminum blocks with steps ranging from 1 to 10 mm, each increasing by 1 mm. Aluminum is preferred because it has an absorption coefficient similar to enamel.²⁵

Digital radiography systems are widely used to evaluate the radiopacity of dental materials. In this study, an aluminum stepwedge, digital phosphor plate, scanner, and computer-based software were used. This system eliminated the need for conventional film and chemical processing, reduced time consumption, and minimized steps that may compromise radiographic quality. Images were processed and stored using the same device, removing the need for an optical densitometer. While radiopacity is traditionally measured using densitometers on film, digital systems record grayscale values directly, allowing for high-resolution quantitative analysis beyond the limits of visual perception.^10,26

ISO 4049 states that the minimum radiopacity of restorative materials should not be lower than that of an equivalent thickness of aluminum. For this purpose, 98% pure aluminum, which exhibits radiopacity similar to human dentin, is recommended as a radiographic standard for resin-based filling materials.²⁷ Some researchers also recommend using dentin and enamel as secondary standards alongside aluminum stepwedges.⁶ Accordingly, restorative materials are expressed in Al-equivalent values relative to dentin and enamel. In our study, all pulp-capping materials were found to be more radiopaque than dentin. However, the radiopacity values of Biodentin, Calcimol LC, MTA CEM LC, and TheraCal LC were lower than those of enamel. This may complicate radiographic assessment in areas where enamel is superimposed over dentin. In a study by Tarçın et al.,²⁸ reference radiopacity values for dentin and enamel were found to be 1.07 ± 0.30 mm and 2.09 ± 0.48 mm Al equivalent, respectively. These values indicate that dentin corresponds to approximately 1 mm Al and enamel to approximately 2 mm Al.

Previous studies have reported varying radiopacity values for these materials. For instance, Mutlu and Akbulut²³ reported that BiOfactor MTA exhibited higher radiopacity values compared with Angelus MTA and Biodentine, with both BIOfactor MTA and Angelus MTA exceeding the 3 mm Al threshold. In the literature, differing results have been reported regarding the radiopacity of Angelus MTA. While Vivan et al.²⁹ reported a high radiopacity of 6.45 mm Al, other studies have recorded lower values. Similarly, Luna-Cruz et al.³⁰ reported radiopacity values of 5.7 mm Al for MTA Angelus and 3 mm Al for Biodentine. Variations in powder-to-liquid ratios may affect radiopacity; for example, a 4:1 ratio in white MTA has been associated with higher values. However, such changes may also alter the physical and biological properties of the material. Variability across studies may also be attributed to differences in tube current, tube voltage, exposure time, X-ray source, object–source distance, and the type of aluminum stepwedge used.

In Angelus MTA, radiopacity is provided by bismuth oxide. However, bismuth oxide has been shown to interfere with the setting reaction and to exhibit cytotoxic effects on human pulp cells. Additionally, the incorporation of bismuth oxide into Portland cement has been reported to disrupt its physical structure, resulting in matrix defects and increased porosity, which may enhance solubility and degradation. Bosso-Martelo et al.³¹ reported the aluminum-equivalent radiopacity of MTA Angelus as 5.96 mm, and our study yielded a similar value of 5.80 mm. This high radiopacity is attributed to its bismuth oxide content.

Biodentine is a capsule-based material composed of dicalcium and tricalcium silicate powder combined with a liquid phase containing calcium chloride and a water-soluble polymer. Zirconium oxide is added to provide radiopacity. Unlike bismuth oxide, zirconium oxide is biocompatible, bioinert, and mechanically stable. However, the radiopacity of Biodentine is significantly lower than that of ProRoot MTA, Angelus MTA, and Micro-Mega MTA, and below ISO and ANSI/ADA standards. In a study by Kaup et al., ProRoot MTA exhibited a radiopacity of 6.5 mm Al, whereas Biodentine showed a value of 1.5 mm Al.³² These results are consistent with the findings of our study. Variability across studies can be attributed to factors such as tube current, tube voltage, exposure time, X-ray source, object-source distance, and differences in aluminum stepwedges. Additionally, variations in powder-to-liquid ratios may contribute to the inconsistency of results.

In a study evaluating the physical properties of pulp-capping materials, Amonchaiyapitak et al.³³ reported the radiopacity of Dycal as equivalent to 2.85 mm of aluminum. In our study, this value was similarly found to be 2.90 mm aluminum, consistent with the literature.

The recently developed BiOfactor MTA consists of a powder phase containing tricalcium and dicalcium silicate, tricalcium aluminate, and ytterbium oxide, and a liquid phase composed of a carboxylated polymer and demineralized water. Mutlu and Akbulut²³ demonstrated higher radiopacity compared with Angelus MTA and Biodentine. Ytterbium oxide provides higher cell viability and biocompatibility compared with bismuth oxide and does not adversely affect the biological or physicochemical properties of the material. However, further studies are required to evaluate the biocompatibility, bioactivity, and physical properties of BiOfactor MTA in detail.

There are no published studies regarding the radiopacity of TheraCal, MTA Cem LC, and Calcimol LC. In our research, TheraCal LC exhibited a radiopacity of 2.01 mm Al, MTA Cem LC 1.28 mm Al, and Calcimol LC 1.30 mm Al. Although all three materials were more radiopaque than dentin, they were less radiopaque than enamel. Further studies are required to standardize radiopacity assessment methods and to better understand the clinical implications of these findings.

Conclusion

Within the limitations of this in vitro study, ProRoot MTA exhibited the highest radiopacity among all tested materials. MTA Cem LC, Calcimol LC, Biodentine, and TheraCal LC were more radiopaque than dentin; however, their radiopacity values remained below that of enamel, which may present limitations in radiographic differentiation, particularly in cases of enamel superimposition. These findings highlight the importance of considering radiopacity in relation to anatomical structures when interpreting radiographic outcomes.

Although differences in radiopacity are often attributed to the type of radiopacifying agents, multiple factors—including filler content, powder-to-liquid ratio, specimen porosity, setting characteristics, resin matrix, and degree of polymerization—may also influence the radiographic outcomes. Therefore, the interpretation of radiopacity differences should be made with caution.

All evaluated materials demonstrated radiopacity values higher than dentin, indicating that they provide sufficient radiographic contrast for clinical identification. However, radiopacity alone is not sufficient to determine clinical performance. Material selection should be based on a comprehensive evaluation of mechanical, chemical, and biological properties, as well as specific clinical requirements.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Savas Sagmak

Ethical considerations

This study was approved by the Non-Interventional Clinical Research Ethics Committee of Adıyaman University (2025/6-38).

Author contributions

Methodology: S.S. and E.A.G, Investigation: S.S. and E.A.G, Formal Analysis: S.S., E.A.G. and E.O., Writing - Original Draft: S.S., Writing - Review & Editing: S.S. and E.O., Supervision: E.O.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data availability statement

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are available in the Adıyaman University repository. The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.*

References

Prati

Gandolfi

MG.

Calcium silicate bioactive cements: biological perspectives and clinical applications. Dent Mater 2015; 31(4): 351–370.

Komabayashi

Zhu

Eberhart

, et al. Current status of direct pulp-capping materials for permanent teeth. Dent Mater J 2016; 35(1): 1–12.

Schwendicke

Brouwer

Schwendicke

, et al. Different materials for direct pulp capping: systematic review and meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. Clin Oral Investig 2016; 20(6): 1121–1132.

Koshi

Cengiz

Faruk

, et al. Nanotechnology in restorative dentistry. Ata Diş Hek Fak Derg 2015; 25(2): 266–274.

Saridag

Helvacioglu-Yigit

Alniacik

, et al. Radiopacity measurements of direct and indirect resin composites at different thicknesses using digital image analysis. Dent Mater J 2015; 34(1): 13–18.

Watts

McCabe

JF.

Aluminium radiopacity standards for dentistry: an international survey. J Dent 1999; 27(1): 73–78.

Ağaccıoğlu

Yılmaz

MN.

The radiopacity of single-shade composite resins: a comparative evaluation. J Esthet Restor Dent 2024; 36(3): 527–533. https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.13195

Makdissi

Pawar

Digital radiography in the dental practice: an update. Prim Dent J 2013; 2(1): 58–64.

Sabbagh

Vreven

Leloup

Radiopacity of resin-based materials measured in film radiographs and storage phosphor plate (Digora). JOd 2004; 29: 677–684.18.

10.

Akcay

Ilhan

Dundar

Comparison of conventional and digital radiography systems with regard to radiopacity of root canal filling materials. Int Endod J 2012; 45: 730–736.

11.

Chen

Y-Z

Lü

Liu

G-D.

Effects of different radio-opacifying agents on physicochemical and biological properties of a novel root-end filling material. PLoS One 2018; 13: e0191123.

12.

Baksi

Sen

Eyuboglu

TF.

Differences in aluminum equivalent values of endodontic sealers: conventional versus digital radiography. J Endod 2008; 34: 1101–1104.

13.

S-Y

C-H

Choi

K-S

, et al. Radiopacity of contemporary luting cements using conventional and digital radiography. Imaging Sci Dent 2018; 48: 97–101.

14.

Gandolfi

Siboni

Botero

, et al. Calcium silicate and calcium hydroxide materials for pulp capping: biointeractivity, porosity, solubility and bioactivity of current formulations. J Appl Biomater Funct Mater 2015; 13(1): 43–60.

15.

Heblıng

Lessa

FCR

Nogueıra

, et al. Cytotoxicity of resin-based light-cures liner cements. Am J Dent 2009; 22(3): 137–142.

16.

Moussa

SA.

Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) vs calcium hydroxide in direct pulp capping – literature review. Online J. Dent. Oral Heal 2018; 1: 1–6.

17.

Ipek

Karaağaç Eskibağlar

Yildiz

, et al. Analysis of the bond strength between conventional, putty or resin-modified calcium silicate cement and bulk fill composites. Aust Dent J 2023; 68: 265–272.

18.

Rajasekharan

Martens

Cauwels

RGEC

, et al. Biodentine™ material characteristics and clinical applications: a 3 year literature review and update. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2018; 19(1): 1–22.

19.

Öznurhan

Kayabasi

Keskus

Evaluation of long-term results of two different calcium silicate based materials in primary molar teeth vital pulpotomies: an invivo study. J. C. D. J 2020; 23(1): 45–51.

20.

Moradi

Abbasi

Bahador

, et al. Evaluation of cytotoxicity and antibacterial activity of different pulp capping liners. Biomater Investig Dent 2023; 10(1): 2287019. https://doi.org/10.1080/26415275.2023.2287019

21.

Sen

Helvacioglu-Yigit

Yilmaz

Radiopacity evaluation of calcium silicate cements. BMC Oral Health 2023; 23(1): 491. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03182-w

22.

Sun

Hou

, et al. Core-shell structured SiO(2)@zro(2)@SiO(2) filler for radiopacity and ultra-low shrinkage dental composite resins. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2021; 121: 104593.

23.

Mutlu

ŞN

Akbulut

. Evaluation of radiopacity of BiOfactor MTA by digital radiography. Selcuk Dent J 2022; 9(2): 520–526.

24.

Tagger

Katz

Radiopacity of endodontic sealers: development of a new method for direct measurement. J Endod 2003; 29: 751–755.

25.

Goshima

The optimum level of radiopacity in posterior composite resins. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1989; 18: 19–21.

26.

Ahmetoğlu

Keleş

Ocak

, et al. Radiopacity evaluation of three calcium silicate based materials by digital radiography. Clin Dentistry Res 2013; 37(3): 32–37.

27.

ISO-Standards 4049:2009. Dentistry—Polymerbased restorative materials. Geneva: International Organizationfor Standardization. 4th ed.

Geneva, Switzerland

28.

Tarcin

Gumru

Peker

, et al. Evaluation of radiopacity of bulk-fill flowable composites using digital radiography. Oper Dent 2016; 41(4): 424–431.

29.

Vivan

Ordinola-Zapata

Bramante

, et al. Evaluation of the radiopacity of some commercial and experimental root-end filling materials. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2009; 108: e35–e38.

30.

Luna-Cruz

Aguiar

Fechine

PBA

, et al. Physicochemical properties of silicate tricalcium-based cement for use as pulp capping or repair material. Braz Oral Res 2024; 38: e136.

31.

Bosso-Martelo

Guerreiro-Tanomaru

Viapiana

, et al. Physicochemical properties of calcium silicate cements associated with microparticulate and nanoparticulate radiopacifiers. Clin Oral Investig 2016; 20(1): 83–90. Epub 2015 May 8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-015-1483-7

32.

Kaup

Schäfer

Dammaschke

An in vitro study of different material properties of biodentine compared to ProRoot MTA. Head Face Med 2015; 11: 16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13005-015-0074-9

33.

Amonchaiyapitak

Santiwong

Wasanapiarnpong

, et al. Investigation of the physical, chemical, and biological properties of the cockle shell-derived calcium silicate-based pulp capping material: a pilot study. Br Dent J Open 2024; 10(1): 93.