©
Operative Dentistry, 2023, 48-3, 000-000
Translucency and Radiopacity of
Dental Resin Composites – Is There
a Direct Relation?
LPL Rosado • EA Münchow • ELS de Oliveira • R Lacerda-Santos
DQ Freitas • HL Carlo • FS Verner
Clinical Relevance
Clinicians should carefully choose the resin composite, since it may show greater or lower
translucency than human dentin and enamel, potentially compromising the cosmetic
appearance of the restoration.
SUMMARY
Objectives: The purpose of this study was to
correlate the translucency degree of varying resin
composites with their radiopacity.
Methods and Materials: Twenty-four resin
composites (conventional or bulk-fill) of various
shades and opacities were selected from the
following manufacturers: 3M ESPE (nanofilled),
Ivoclar (nanohybrid), and FGM (microhybrid).
Lucas P Lopes Rosado, DDS, MSc, PhD researcher, Department
of Oral Diagnosis, Division of Oral Radiology, Piracicaba
Dental School, University of Campinas, Piracicaba, SP, Brazil
Eliseu Aldrighi Münchow, DDS, MSc, PhD, Department of
Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Federal University
of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil
Eduardo Lopes Soares de Oliveira, DDS, Department of
Dentistry, Health Science Institute, Federal University of Juiz
de Fora, Governador Valadares, MG, Brazil
Rogério Lacerda-Santos, DDS, MSc, PhD, Department of
Dentistry, Health Science Institute, Federal University of Juiz
de Fora, Governador Valadares, MG, Brazil
Deborah Queiroz Freitas, DDS, MSc, PhD, Department of
Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/operative-dentistry/article-pdf/doi/10.2341/22-056-L/3211518/10.2341_22-056-l.pdf by UFJF - UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE JUIZ DE FORA user on 26 April 2023
Resin composite samples (n=5) were prepared (5-
mm diameter × 1.5-mm thickness) for comparison
using prepared samples of human dentin and
enamel as controls. The translucency of each sample
was measured using the translucent parameter
(TP) method with a digital spectrophotometer
(Vita Easyshade) and CIEL*a*b* color system over
white and black backgrounds. The samples were
also x-rayed using a photostimulable phosphor
plate system for measurement of their radiopacity
(in mmAl). All data were analyzed using one-way
Oral Diagnosis, Division of Oral Radiology, Piracicaba Dental
School, University of Campinas, Piracicaba, SP, Brazil
Hugo Lemes Carlo DDS, MSc, PhD, Department of Operative
Dentistry and Dental Materials, School of Dentistry, Federal
University of Uberlandia, Uberlândia, MG, Brazil
*Francielle Silvestre Verner, DDS, MSc, PhD, Department of
Dentistry, Health Science Institute, Federal University of Juiz
de Fora, Governador Valadares, MG, Brazil
*Corresponding author: Avenue Dr Raimundo Monteiro
Rezende 330, Sala 301, Centro, Governador Valadares, Minas
Gerais, Brazil 35.010-173; e-mail: francielle.verner@ufjf.br
http://doi.org/10.2341/22-056-L
2 Operative Dentistry
ANOVA and Student-Newman-Keuls (α=0.05);
data for TP and radiopacity were correlated using
the Spearman correlation test.
Results: Overall, the translucent shades and bulk-
fill resin composites showed greater translucency
than the other resins. While “body” and “enamel”
shades demonstrated intermediate translucency
to dentin and enamel, the “dentin” shades were
more standardized, showing similar translucency to
human dentin. All tested resin composites showed
similar or greater radiopacity to human enamel,
except the Empress Direct (Ivoclar) resin with Trans
Opal shade, which was not radiopaque. Dentin
and enamel showed radiopacity similar to 1 and 2
mmAl (millimeters of aluminum), respectively.
Conclusions: The resin composites investigated in
this study differed regarding their translucency
degree and radiopacity level, without any positive
relationship between the two properties.
INTRODUCTION
The chemistry of light-sensitive resin composites has
advanced, making it easier to mimick both enamel
and dentin. However, ideally matching color shade
and thickness of opaque and translucent materials
is still a challenge for most professionals,1-3 and if the
inappropriate material or improper thickness is used,
the esthetic result may be unsatisfactory, leading to
patient dissatisfaction.3 The opacity and translucency
degree of resin composites can be modified by the
manufacturer by changing the content and nature of
inorganic fillers and by adding opaque or translucent
ingredients.4,5 Overall, the greater the content of fillers,
the more opaque the resin composite becomes since
inorganic fillers have a higher refractive index compared
to resin monomers,6 increasing light scattering within
the material. No less important, some inorganic fillers
are more opaque than others due to the presence of
chemical elements with high atomic numbers (eg,
barium, strontium, zinc, zircon, ytterbium),7,8 turning
the material more opaque than resin composites
comprised solely of silica and quartz particles, and
consist of less dense atoms (eg, silicate, carbon,
oxygen, hydrogen).
Likewise, the atomic number of the chemical
ingredients of resin composites may also influence their
radiopacity.9 While radiopaque materials inhibit X-ray
passage through their bulk structure, radiolucent
materials allow X-ray passage.10,11 Clinically speaking,
radiopacity is an important property of resin
composites since it may help differentiation between
restorative materials and dental substrates; correct
evaluation of shape, contour, and marginal adaptation
of the restoration;12,13 and the identification of voids/
defects that may be present within restorations, as
Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/operative-dentistry/article-pdf/doi/10.2341/22-056-L/3211518/10.2341_22-056-l.pdf by UFJF - UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE JUIZ DE FORA user on 26 April 2023
well as secondary caries.14 Similar to what happens
for translucency properties, the atomic number of
main ingredients is also a characteristic related to
radiopacity; the greater the atomic number, the greater
the radiopacity.15 Despite several studies aimed to
investigate the optical properties of resin composites,
there is not a previous publication focusing on the
correlation between radiopacity and translucency
characteristics.
Hence, the purpose of this study was to investigate
the relation between translucency and radiopacity of
varying resin composites. The study hypothesis was
that the greater the degree of translucency the lesser
the radiopacity.
METHODS AND MATERIALS
This in vitro study prepared specimens from three
different classes of resin composites: micro-hybrid,
nanohybrid, and nanofilled. Each specimen was
evaluated for translucency and radiopacity. In total,
twenty-four materials were selected. Their brand, color
shade, lot number, composition, and filler content are
shown in Table 1. ISO 4049:2009 specifications were
followed in this study.16
Preparation of Dental and Resin
Composite Specimens
An elastomeric (Futura, DFL) mold (5 mm diameter ×
1.5 mm thickness) was used to prepare five specimens
of each resin composite. The materials were placed in
the mold with the aid of a spatula and covered with
a Mylar sheet. Pressure was applied to extrude any
excess material. Light activation was performed using
a light-emitting diode (LED) curing unit (Emitter C,
Schuster, Santa Maria, RS, Brazil) as recommended
by each manufacturer. The power intensity of the LED
was 1250 mW/cm2. Surface finishing was performed
using abrasive SiC papers (1200-grit) under wet
conditions. Enamel and dentin specimens (5 × 1.5
mm) were obtained from disinfected, sound human
third molars.
Translucency Parameter (TP) Analysis
The translucency degree of each specimen was
measured according to the translucency parameter
method using a digital spectrophotometer (Vita
Easyshade, Vita Zahnfabrik, Bad Sackingen, Germany)
with the CIEL*a*b* color system. Each specimen was
measured over white (LW*=94.44; aW*=0.26; bW*=1.69)
Rosado & Others: Translucency and Radiopacity of Dental Resin Composites 3

Table 1: Information of Brand, Color Shade, Lot Number, Composition, and Filler Content (in wt%) of the Resin
Composites Tested in the Study
Brand Resin Composite Color Shade (Lot) Composition Filler Load

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/operative-dentistry/article-pdf/doi/10.2341/22-056-L/3211518/10.2341_22-056-l.pdf by UFJF - UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE JUIZ DE FORA user on 26 April 2023
Opallis A1D (180817) Bis-GMA, Bis-EMA, TEGDMA, UDMA, 79.8%
Opallis A3D (260617) CQ, coinitiator, silane, silanized barium-
aluminum silicate glass, pigments, silica
Opallis A1E (180817) 78.5%
Opallis A3E (260617)
FGM
Opus Bulk Fill A1 (100817) Urethaned imethacrylic monomers, 79%
Opus Bulk Fill A3 (070817) coinitiator, photoinitiator, stabilizers,
pigments, silanized silica
Opus Bulk Fill Flow A1 (180317) 68%
Opus Bulk Fill Flow A3 (110417)
Empress Direct BL-L (P73680) Dimethacrylates, pre-polymers, barium- 60%
Empress Direct B1D (P58317) aluminum silicate glass, ytterbium
trifluoride, initiators
Empress Direct A1D (P58317)
Empress Direct B1E (P58317) Dimethacrylates, barium-aluminum silicate 78.1%
Ivoclar Empress Direct BL-XL (P59478) glass, initiators
Vivadent Empress Direct A1E (P55580)
Empress Direct Trans 30 (N58446) Dimethacrylates, pre-polymers, barium- 72.2%
aluminum silicate glass, initiators
Empress Direct Trans Opal (N58446) Dimethacrylates, pre-polymers, barium- 20%
aluminum silicate glass, silica, initiators
Filtek Z350 XT A1D (N812985) Bis-GMA, UDMA, TEGDMA, Bis-EMA 6, 78.5%
Filtek Z350 XT A1B (N187685) silica, zirconia, zirconia/sílica agglomerate
Filtek Z350 XT A1E (588002)
Filtek Z350 XT A3D (646789)
3MESPE Filtek Z350 XT A3B (590078)
Filtek Z350 XT A3E (761710)
Filtek Z350 XT WE (N902169) 72.5%
Filtek Bulk Fill Universal (N653369) Bis-GMA, UDMA, Bis-EMA 6, Procrylat, 64.5%
zircon/silica, ytterbium trifluoride
Abbreviations: Bis-GMA, bisphenol-A diglycidyl dimethacrylate; Bis-EMA, bisphenol-A ethoxylated dimethacrylate; TEGDMA,
triethyleneglycol dimethacrylate; UDMA, urethane dimethacrylate.

and black (LB*=1.38; aB* 0.00; bB*=0.06) backgrounds.
The TP was calculated using the following equation17:
𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 = %(𝐿𝐿∗! − 𝐿𝐿∗# )² + (𝑎𝑎!
∗
− 𝑎𝑎#∗ )² + (𝑏𝑏!
∗
− 𝑏𝑏#∗ )²
Radiopacity Analysis
Radiographic images were obtained using a semi-direct
digital system (Express, Instrumentarium Imaging,
Tuusula, Finland) with photostimulable phosphor
plates (PSP) size 2 (31 × 41 mm of active area). One
specimen of each resin composite (n=5) was positioned
over the PSP, plus one specimen of enamel and dentin,
and an aluminum step-wedge (99% purity) containing
six levels of aluminum thickness (1 mm each). All the
specimens plus aluminum step-wedges followed the
same distribution over the PSP for every group tested.
The x-ray images were obtained using periapical
x-ray equipment (Focus, Instrumentarium Imaging),
following the parallelism technique, with a long
cylinder and circular collimator. Exposure factors were
kept constant: 70 kVp, 7 mA, 40 cm focus-PSP distance,
and 0.2 s exposure time. The PSP was positioned on
a flat surface parallel to the horizontal plane, and the
external surface of the cylinder was also parallel to the
horizontal plane to ensure a perpendicular incidence of
4 Operative Dentistry
the x-ray beam. The PSPs were scanned immediately
after the exposure in the Express, read with 14.3-line
pairs/millimeter, and using the CliniView software
(Instrumentarium Imaging). All the images were saved
in the .TIFF extension, without compression. Each set
of resin composite specimens, dental specimens, and
aluminum step-wedges was x-rayed five times with the
same PSP to prevent any possibility of interferences or
artifacts related to the PSP.
The relative radiographic density (RRD) of each
specimen, dentin, enamel, and the steps of the
aluminum step-wedges were individually collected
using histogram analysis (Adobe Photoshop, version
7.0.1, Adobe Systems, Los Angeles, CA, USA).
Three different standardized areas (region of interest
measuring 0.6 × 0.6 mm) that were free of bubbles were
selected in each specimen, and the average of their
RRD was obtained. All measurements were performed
by a single, calibrated operator, who was blind to the
groups tested, to eliminate inter-observer inconsistency
and bias. The RRD values obtained for each step of
the aluminum step-wedges were applied in a linear
regression model in an attempt to convert the RRD
values of the specimens tested in radiopacity values, in
mmAl (millimeters of aluminum).
Statistical Analysis
The data obtained in the study were analyzed with
the statistical program SigmaPlot version 12 (Systat
Software Inc, San Jose, CA, USA) using one-way
analysis of variance and the Student Newman Keuls test
for multiple comparisons (α=0.05). Translucency and
radiopacity data were correlated using the Spearman
Correlation test.
RESULTS
Figure 1 shows the translucency parameter (TP) data of
the resin composites tested in this study. According to
the statistical analysis, the materials differed from each
other (p≤0.001). Enamel showed 2.8 greater TP than
dentin (p<0.001). Opus Bulk-Fill Flow shades A1 and
A3 presented the greatest TP values, which were greater
than all the other materials and enamel (p≤0.009).
Empress Direct shades Trans Opal and Trans 30 were as
translucent as enamel (p=0.998). Actual human dentin
showed similar TP values similar to Opallis (shades
A1-D and A3-D), Filtek Z350 (shades A1-B and A1-D),
and Empress Direct (shades B1-D, A1-D, and BL-L)
(p≥0.665). Shade A3-D of Filtek Z350 demonstrated the
lowest TP of the study, which was lower than dentin
(p=0.022). The remaining resin composites showed TP
values lower than enamel (p<0.001) but greater than
dentin (p≤0.035).
The linear regression model used to convert
the relative radiographic density (RRD) values in
radiopacity showed a positive relationship between the
variables (R2=0.9847; p=0.002). The radiopacity results
Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/operative-dentistry/article-pdf/doi/10.2341/22-056-L/3211518/10.2341_22-056-l.pdf by UFJF - UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE JUIZ DE FORA user on 26 April 2023
are shown in Figure 2. The resin composites differed
statistically from each other (p≤0.001). The Trans Opal
shade of Empress Direct was the only material that did
not present radiopacity in this study. Human dentin
and enamel displayed radiopacity of 0.8 and 2.0 mmAl,
respectively, with enamel showing greater radiopacity
than dentin (p<0.001). Opus Bulk Fill Flow (FGM) was
the only material as radiopaque as enamel (p=0.951),
whereas all the other resin composites demonstrated
greater radiopacity than dentin and enamel (p<0.05).
The A1-D and B1-D shades of Empress Direct were
the most radiopaque of the study, showing radiopacity
similar to 5.0 mmAl. It seems that the materials from
Ivoclar tend to show greater radiopacity, followed by
materials from FGM and 3M.
The properties investigated in this study (translucency
and radiopacity) were not positively correlated to each
other (R2 = –0.283; p=0.177). The distribution of TP and
RRD values for each type and color of resin composite
is shown in Figure 2.
DISCUSSION
The hypothesis tested in this study was that the greater
the translucency of the resin composites, the lower
their radiopacity. However, translucency was not
significantly correlated to radiopacity, thus rejecting the
hypothesis. It is known that the major factor affecting
radiopacity is the presence of components with high
atomic numbers since only these elements are capable
of stopping the passage of X-ray radiation, making
the material radiopaque.10,11 The atomic number is a
measure that indicates the number of protons found
in the nucleus of an atom;18 if the element possesses
a great number of protons, it will show radiopacity.
In dentistry, chemical elements such as barium,
aluminum, ytterbium, zirconium, strontium, bismuth,
niobium, and tungsten have been broadly used as
radiopacifiers.15,19-21 Among the resin composites tested
here, those showing greater radiopacity were the ones
comprised of glass fillers containing the aforementioned
radiopacifiers including a glass of barium-aluminum
silicate, ytterbium trifluoride, and others (Table 1).
Notwithstanding, it was considered that the presence
of radiopacifiers would make the resin composite
more opaque and less translucent, which has not been
confirmed by our findings.
One may suggest that radiopacity is different from
opacity or the absence of translucency. According
to Ardu and others,22 translucency is an optical
Rosado & Others: Translucency and Radiopacity of Dental Resin Composites 5

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/operative-dentistry/article-pdf/doi/10.2341/22-056-L/3211518/10.2341_22-056-l.pdf by UFJF - UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE JUIZ DE FORA user on 26 April 2023

Figure 1. Information of brand, color shade, translucency parameter (TP), radiopacity (Rx) in mmAl, and filler fraction (in wt%) of the resin
composites tested in the study. (Different letters indicate statistically significant differences in the same column.)
6 Operative Dentistry
Figure 2. Dispersion graph showing the relation between the
relative radiographic density and translucency parameter data
collected from the resin composites tested in the study. The
graph presents all distinct color shades and opacity degrees
investigated. Dentin and enamel samples were used as controls.
Abbreviations: Op, Opallis; OBF, Opus Bulk Fill; OBFF, Opus
Bulk-Fill Flow.
characteristic that allows easy passage and light
transmission through the structure of a material.
Conversely, the lesser the light passing through the
material, the lower its translucency.23 The degree of
translucency of the resin composites tested here ranged
from 3.8-24.8 (Figure 2). Some materials were classified
as highly translucent, with translucency parameters
greater than human enamel, whereas other materials
exhibited even lower translucency than dentin.
The degree of translucency of the tested materials
varied randomly depending on the type of resin and
manufacturer. Among the intrinsic factors that may
influence the degree of translucency of resin composites,
it seems that the size and concentration of fillers play
a significant role.24-27 In addition, the thickness of the
material is also a factor; the thicker the material, the
lower its translucency level.1,28 In this study, thickness
was kept constant.
Three distinct types of resin composites were selected
in our study: composites containing only nanosized
fillers (nanofilled – from 3M); composites containing
slightly larger fillers within the micrometric range
(micro-hybrid – from FGM); and composites containing
nanosized and micrometric fillers (nanohybrid –
from Ivoclar). Thus, this study used resin composites
with varying compositions to investigate the effect of
variables such as “size” and “concentration” of fillers
on the translucency and radiopacity of the materials.
Opus Bulk-Fill Flow from FGM for both shades
Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/operative-dentistry/article-pdf/doi/10.2341/22-056-L/3211518/10.2341_22-056-l.pdf by UFJF - UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE JUIZ DE FORA user on 26 April 2023
tested (A1 and A3) was the most translucent of the
study. The concentration of fillers in this material
is 68 wt%, which may be considered a moderate-to-
high filler loading level, and the fillers are within the
micrometric range size; consequently, a reduced degree
of translucency could be expected. Nevertheless, that
same material showed greater translucency than
enamel, so it was categorized as a highly translucent
material. Other factors rather than the content and
the size of fillers may explain this finding, such as the
nature of fillers. Indeed, Opus Bulk-Fill Flow consists
of silanized silica, and according to Palin and others,29
silica-filled composites may allow easier passage of
light through the material, contributing to an increased
degree of translucency. Bulk-fill resin composites differ
from conventional composites in that their increased
polymerization depth allows increments of material
applied in the tooth cavity to be thicker (ie, ~4.0 to
5.0-mm thick).30
Only two resin composites exhibited translucency
similar to enamel: the shades Trans Opal and Trans
30 from Empress Direct. The main difference between
these resin composites is their content of fillers, with
the former showing only 20 wt% of fillers and the
latter 72 wt% of fillers (ie, nearly 3.6 times greater
concentration). Thus, it was expected that Trans
Opal would present considerably greater translucency
than Trans 30, although this was not confirmed.
Considering that both materials are comprised of
barium-aluminum silicate (BAS) glass fillers, it can be
suggested that the size of the fillers is not the same.
In fact, an equal balance of translucency could be
obtained if Trans 30 was constituted of larger fillers,
whereas Trans Opal was comprised of smaller fillers,
which could result in a similar scattering effect and
a similar degree of translucency for the materials. In
addition, the nature of the organic matrix of those resin
composites may have also played a role in their overall
translucency, especially for the silica-based material
(Trans Opal), as demonstrated elsewhere.31 Last,
the presence of pre-polymerized fillers in both resin
composites may have contributed toward making their
translucency similar, with the variation of the average
size of the fillers being an important method to control
the degree of translucency.26
Most of the resin composites tested in this study showed
intermediate translucency as compared with enamel
and dentin, so they were categorized as moderately
translucent materials. Overall, the resin composites
Rosado & Others: Translucency and Radiopacity of Dental Resin Composites
from FGM are constituted of approximately 80 wt%
of BAS and silanized silica fillers; the resin composites
from Ivoclar are comprised of nearly 78 wt% of BAS
fillers; and the resin composites from 3M consist of a
more heterogeneous composition comprised of silica,
zirconia, zircon/silica clusters, as well as ytterbium
trifluoride, varying from 64.5 to 78.5 wt% of loading
level. Here, it may be suggested that the balance of
different sizes of fillers combined with the particular
nature of resin monomers resulted in a similar degree
of translucency levels.31 This may indicate that most of
the current resin composites show lower translucency
than enamel, but greater than dentin, so that the
perfect match between dental restoratives and dental
substrates is still a challenge, making it difficult to
restore the optical characteristics of natural teeth.
Seven resin composites demonstrated similar
translucency to dentin: two from FGM (Opallis, shades
A1D and A3D); two from 3M (Filtek Z350, shades A1B
and A1D); and three from Ivoclar (Empress Direct,
shades B1D, A1D, and BL-L). An interesting fact is
that all the foregoing materials are indeed indicated for
the restoration of dentin, except the material with the
shade B1D, which was expected to present translucency
intermediate to dentin and enamel (ie, moderate
opacity/translucency).32 Notwithstanding, those
resin composites generally are clinically acceptable
to restore the natural appearance of a tooth. Among
the aforementioned materials, those from Ivoclar were
less concentrated in fillers (~60 wt%) as compared
to the others (~78 wt%), but it can be suggested that
the presence of ytterbium trifluoride in the former
accounted for the similar degree of translucency as
compared to the latter. Last, only one resin composite
indicated for the restoration of dentin did not present
similar translucency to the human dentin: Filtek Z350
at shade A3D. This material showed almost two times
lower translucency than dentin so it was categorized as
an almost non-translucent material. Indeed, the high
opacity of this restorative material allows its indication
as a masking material to cover tooth areas that are
highly stained or perhaps darkened due to physiological
events derived from caries’ progress.32 It seems that this
highly opaque resin composite should not be used to
restore superficial dentin; otherwise, the polychromatic
nature of the tooth may be jeopardized.3,33
Taking into consideration that “enamel” and “dentin”
resin composites should present similar degrees of
translucency to human enamel and dentin, respectively,
it can be observed from our findings that none of the
enamel materials mimicked the translucency of enamel,
although the dentin materials have more markedly
corresponded to the natural translucency of dentin.
7
It may be suggested that it is easier to replicate the
optical characteristics of dentin using resin composites,
but not for enamel, which seems to be a more complex
substrate to replicate.34 Moreover, the thickness of
Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/operative-dentistry/article-pdf/doi/10.2341/22-056-L/3211518/10.2341_22-056-l.pdf by UFJF - UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE JUIZ DE FORA user on 26 April 2023
materials applied in the tooth cavity may play an
important role in the final optical appearance of the
restoration, in which the exact amount of dentin and
enamel opacities/translucencies must be restored to
the tooth. Therefore, we suggest that special attention
should be given during the application of enamel
resin composites, since they may directly compromise
the overall optical appearance of the restoration if
improperly used.
The other property investigated in this study was
radiopacity. As shown in Figure 2, all the resin
composites exhibited similar or greater radiopacity
compared to enamel. This is an interesting finding
because it demonstrates that current resin composites
follow international standards for radiopacity. Indeed,
radiopacity is a property of utmost importance in
dentistry, since it allows the diagnosis of secondary
caries or the presence of marginal leakage around
restorations, as well as detecting the total removal of
the defective material.12-14 As discussed before, the
presence of elements with high atomic numbers confers
radiopacity to dental materials.15 For instance, elements
such as barium, aluminum, ytterbium, and zirconia can
be found in the inorganic phase (ie, fillers) of the resin
composites tested in this study. The only exception is for
the bulk-fill materials from FGM, which are comprised
of silanized silica fillers only. Silica fillers may not act
as radiopacifiers, since they are comprised of elements
with low atomic numbers (eg, silicon and oxygen). This
may explain the low radiopacity level of Opus Bulk
Fill Flow (2.2-2.5 mmAl). However, the other bulk-fill
material from FGM (Opus Bulk Fill), which possesses
regular viscosity, showed a considerably greater
radiopacity level (3.3-3.5 mmAl) than its flow version.
Despite showing the same chemical composition that
varies only with regard to their silica loading level, it can
be suggested that other components have accounted
for that particular result. Although the manufacturer
does not inform precisely on the chemical content of
the bulk-fill resin composites, we may suggest that
some pigment/radiopacifier added in greater amounts
in Opus Bulk Fill is responsible for increasing the
radiopacity level of the materials, making it greater than
for the Opus Bulk Fill Flow.
Among all the resin composites tested, Empress
Direct at shade Trans Opal was the only one without
radiopacity, significantly lower than enamel and dentin.
This material is comprised of 20 wt% of fillers only, and
the manufacturer does not inform the exact amount
8 Operative Dentistry
of BAS fillers (radiopacifier) and silica fillers (non-
radiopaque) that are found in its formulation. However,
we may infer that the lack of radiopacity corresponds
to the predominance of silica as the inorganic phase
of the material. On the other hand, Empress Direct at
shade Trans 30 was one of the most radiopaque of this
study (~4.0 mmAl). Despite showing a similar degree of
translucency to its Trans Opal counterpart, the Trans
30 version is constituted of 72.2 wt% of BAS fillers,
thereby contributing to a satisfactory radiopacity level.
It is worth mentioning that the concentration of
fillers is not the only factor influencing the radiopacity
of resin composites, but more importantly the type of
filler particles. Notably, Empress Direct shades A1D
and A1B, comprised of 60 wt% of fillers, demonstrated
greater radiopacity than the more concentrated Trans
30 counterpart. One may suggest that the presence
of ytterbium trifluoride in the former was responsible
for their increased radiopacity, corroborating previous
studies that confirmed that this type of filler is an
excellent radiopacifier for restorative materials15 and
dental adhesives.35-37 Filtek Bulk Fill from 3M is another
resin composite constituted of ytterbium trifluoride,
although its loading level must be insignificant since
the restorative material showed similar radiopacity to
the other materials from the same brand, which are not
comprised of those fillers.
The major goal of the present study was to correlate
translucency and radiopacity properties using current
resin composites. Nevertheless, from the methods used
here, it seems that translucency does not correlate
with radiopacity. While the degree of translucency of a
resin composite can be modified by changing the type,
size, and concentration of fillers as well as by changing
the type of resin monomers; radiopacity seems to be
more directly influenced by the type of fillers. Further
studies focusing on the chemical composition of resin
composites are paramount to better understanding the
factors that may influence the optical and radiographic
characteristics of dental restorative materials, especially
for resin composites.
CONCLUSIONS
The resin composites investigated in this study differed
regarding their translucency degree and radiopacity
level, without any positive relationship between the
two properties.
Acknowledgment
This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de
Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior – Brasil
(CAPES) – Finance Code 001.
Regulatory Statement
This study was conducted in accordance with all the
provisions of the human subjects oversight committee
Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/operative-dentistry/article-pdf/doi/10.2341/22-056-L/3211518/10.2341_22-056-l.pdf by UFJF - UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE JUIZ DE FORA user on 26 April 2023
guidelines and policies of Federal University of Juiz de
Fora. The approval code for this Protocol No 743.388/2017
is 54321.
Conflict of Interest
The authors deny any conflicts of interest related to this study.
The authors have no financial affiliation or involvement with
any commercial organization with a direct financial interest
in the subject or materials discussed in this manuscript, nor
have any such arrangements existed in the past five years.
(Accepted 28 January 2023)
REFERENCES
1. Darabi F, Radafshar G, Tavangar M, Davaloo R, Khosravian
A, & Mirfarhadi N (2014) Translucency and masking ability
of various composite resins at different thicknesses Journal of
Dentistry (Shiraz) 15(3) 117-122.
2. Hernandes DK, Arrais CA, Lima Ed, Cesar PF, & Rodrigues
JA (2016) Influence of resin cement shade on the color and
translucency of ceramic veneers Journal of Applied Oral Science
24(4) 391-396.
3. Lee YK (2016) Criteria for clinical translucency evaluation
of direct esthetic restorative materials Restorative Dentistry &
Endodontics 41(3) 159-166.
4. Mondelli J, Rizzante FAP, Valera FB, Roperto R, Mondelli RFL,
& Furuse AY (2019) Assessment of a conservative approach for
restoration of extensively destroyed posterior teeth Journal of
Applied Oral Science 27 e20180631.
5. Larson TD (1986) Techniques for achieving realistic color
distribution in large composite resin restorations Journal of the
American Dental Association 112(5) 669-672.
6. Miletic V, Jakovljevic N, Manojlovic D, Marjanovic J, Rosic AA,
& Dramićanin MD (2017) Refractive indices of unfilled resin
mixtures and cured composites related to color and translucency
of conventional and low-shrinkage composites Journal of Biomedical
Materials Research Part B Applied Biomaterials 105(1) 7-13.
7. Leitune VC, Collares FM, Trommer RM, Andrioli DG, Bergmann
CP, & Samuel SM (2013) The addition of nanostructured
hydroxyapatite to an experimental adhesive resin Journal of
Dentistry 41(4) 321-327.
8. van Dijken JW, Wing KR, & Ruyter IE (1989) An evaluation of
the radiopacity of composite restorative materials used in Class I
and Class II cavities Acta Odontologica Scandinavica 47(6) 401-407.
9. López A, Montazerolghaem M, Engqvist H, Ott MK, & Persson
C (2014) Calcium phosphate cements with strontium halides as
radiopacifiers Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part B Applied
Biomaterials 102(2) 250-259.
10. James NR & Jayakrishnan A (2007) On imparting radiopacity to
a poly(urethane urea) Biomaterials 28(21) 3182-3187.
Rosado & Others: Translucency and Radiopacity of Dental Resin Composites
11. Mädler L, Krumeich F, Burtscher P, & Moszner N (2006) Visibly
transparent & radiopaque inorganic organic composites from
flame-made mized-oxide fillers Journal of Nanoparticle Research 8
323-333.
12. Cook WD (1981) An investigation of the radiopacity of composite
restorative materials Australian Dental Journal 26(2) 105-112.
13. Stanford CM, Fan PL, Schoenfeld CM, Knoeppel R, & Stanford
JW (1987) Radiopacity of light-cured posterior composite resins
Journal of the American Dental Association 115(5) 722-724.
14. Fenyo-Pereira M (1989) Evaluation of the radiopacity of different
types of porcelain used to make inlays/onlays by the conventional
and digital methods São Paulo: São Paulo University.
15. Collares FM, Ogliari FA, Lima GS, Fontanella VR, Piva E, &
Samuel SM (2010) Ytterbium trifluoride as a radiopaque agent
for dental cements International Endodontic Journal 43(9) 792-797.
16. ISO-Standards (2009) Dentistry -polymer-based filling, restorative
and luting materials Geneve: International Organization for
Standardization.
17. Münchow EA, Sedrez-Porto JA, Piva E, Pereira-Cenci T, & Cenci
MS (2016) Use of dental adhesives as modeler liquid of resin
composites Dental Materials 32(4) 570-577.
18. Jussiani EI & Appoloni CR (2015) Effective atomic number and
density determination of rocks by X-ray microtomography Micron
70 1-6.
19. Bosso-Martelo R, Guerreiro-Tanomaru JM, Viapiana R, Berbert
FL, Duarte MA, & Tanomaru-Filho M (2016) Physicochemical
properties of calcium silicate cements associated with
microparticulate and nanoparticulate radiopacifiers Clinical Oral
Investigations 20(1) 83-90.
20. Ferracane JL (2011) Resin composite--state of the art Dental
Materials 27(1) 29-38.
21. Haas K, Azhar G, Wood DJ, Moharamzadeh K, & van Noort
R (2017) The effects of different opacifiers on the translucency
of experimental dental composite resins Dental Materials 33(8)
e310-e316.
22. Ardu S, Rossier I, di Bella E, Krejci I, & Dietschi D (2019) Resin
composite thickness’ influence on L*a*b* coordinates and
translucency Clinical Oral Investigations 23(4) 1583-1586.
23. Lee YK (2015) Translucency of human teeth and dental
restorative materials and its clinical relevance Journal of Biomedical
Optics 20(4) 045002.
24. Johnston WM (2014) Review of translucency determinations and
applications to dental materials Journal of Esthetic and Restorative
Dentistry 26(4) 217-223.
25. Ozakar Ilday N, Celik N, Bayindir YZ, & Seven N (2014) Effect
of water storage on the translucency of silorane-based and
9
dimethacrylate-based composite resins with fibres Journal of
Dentistry 42(6) 746-752.
26. Salgado VE, Cavalcante LM, Silikas N, & Schneider LF (2013)
The influence of nanoscale inorganic content over optical and
Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/operative-dentistry/article-pdf/doi/10.2341/22-056-L/3211518/10.2341_22-056-l.pdf by UFJF - UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE JUIZ DE FORA user on 26 April 2023
surface properties of model composites Journal of Dentistry 41
e45-e53.
27. Suh YR, Ahn JS, Ju SW, & Kim KM (2017) Influences of filler
content and size on the color adjustment potential of nonlayered
resin composites Dental Materials Journal 36(1) 35-40.
28. Wang F, Takahashi H, & Iwasaki N (2013) Translucency of dental
ceramics with different thicknesses Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
110(1) 14-20.
29. Palin WM, Leprince JG, & Hadis MA (2018) Shining a light
on high volume photocurable materials Dental Materials 34(5)
695-710.
30. Colak H, Tokay U, Uzgur R, Hamidi MM, & Ercan E (2017) A
prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial of one nano-
hybrid and one high-viscosity bulk-fill composite restorative
systems in class II cavities: 12 months results Nigerian Journal of
Clinical Practice 20(7) 822-831.
31. Azzopardi N, Moharamzadeh K, Wood DJ, Martin N, &
van Noort R (2009) Effect of resin matrix composition on the
translucency of experimental dental composite resins Dental
Materials 25(12) 1564-1568.
32. Miotti LL, Santos IS, Nicoloso GF, Pozzobon RT, Susin AH, &
Durand LB (2017) The use of resin composite layering technique
to mask discolored background: A CIELAB/CIEDE2000 analysis
Operative Dentistry 42(2) 165-174.
33. Salas M, Lucena C, Herrera LJ, Yebra A, Della Bona A, & Pérez
MM (2018) Translucency thresholds for dental materials Dental
Materials 34(8) 1168-1174.
34. Villarroel M, Fahl N, De Sousa AM, & De Oliveira OB Jr (2011)
Direct esthetic restorations based on translucency and opacity of
composite resins Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry 23(2)
73-87.
35. Cocco AR, Lima GS, Leal FB, Münchow EA, Ogliari FA, & Piva
E (2018) Addition of nanoparticles for development of radiopaque
dental adhesives International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives 80
122-127.
36. Carreño NLV, Oliveira TCS, Piva E, Leal FB, Lima GS, Moncks
MD, Raubach CW, & Ogliari FA (2012) YbF3/SiO2 Fillers as
radiopacifiers in a dental adhesive resin Nano-Micro Letters 4(3)
189-196.
37. Macedo CLR, Münchow EA, Lima GS, Zanchi CH, Ogliari FA,
& Piva E (2015) Incorporation of inorganic fillers into experimental
resin adhesives: Effects on physical properties and bond strength
to dentin International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives 62 78-84.