International Journal of Dental Sciences and Research
ISSN (Print): 2333-1135 ISSN (Online): 2333-1259 Website: Editor-in-chief: Marcos Roberto Tovani Palone
Open Access
Journal Browser
International Journal of Dental Sciences and Research. 2018, 6(4), 105-109
DOI: 10.12691/ijdsr-6-4-6
Open AccessArticle

Influence of Different Bioactive Tooth Colored Restorative Materials in Caries Detection Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography

Ola. M. Sakr1, 2, and Iman Dakhli3

1Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Qassim University, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

2Department of Operative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Misr University for Science and Technology, Egypt

3Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University, Egypt

Pub. Date: June 25, 2018

Cite this paper:
Ola. M. Sakr and Iman Dakhli. Influence of Different Bioactive Tooth Colored Restorative Materials in Caries Detection Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography. International Journal of Dental Sciences and Research. 2018; 6(4):105-109. doi: 10.12691/ijdsr-6-4-6


Aim: To ensure the diagnostic ability of CBCT for caries detection under different types of tooth colored restorative materials. Material and Methods: In the present study a total of 80 extracted carious permanent molar teeth were selected. Caries was classified as grade 3 according to International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS) criteria. Half of carious lesions were removed from 40 molars as Control specimens. Carious teeth were randomly assigned into two groups and each group was divided into four subgroups including: two carious and two non-carious as controlled group and all the teeth were filled with different bioactive restorative materials, then all the specimens were scanned with cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) using a Promax® 3DMid CBCT device (Planmeca, Oy, Helsinki, Finland). Results: Caries was detected in all the carious specimens of all the groups except that group A2 was much less remarkable than other groups. In the control specimens (non-carious) of all the groups: No caries was detected .Conclusion: Although CBCT is an excellent tool for secondary caries detection under different types of restorative materials but it should not be used as a primary diagnostic tool on regular basis. If its use is a must, so, optimized low dose low resolution protocol is recommended.

caries detection CBCT bioactive restorative materials recurrent caries

Creative CommonsThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit


Figure of 1


[1]  Qu X, Li G, Zhang Z, Ma X, “Detection accuracy of in vitro approximal caries by cone beam computed tomography images,” Eur J Radiol, 79(2). e24-7. 2011.
[2]  Zhang ZL, Qu XM, Li G, Zhang ZY, Ma XC, “The detection accuracies for proximal caries by conebeam computerized tomography, film, and phosphor plates,” Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod, 111(1). 103-8. 2011.
[3]  Baltacıoˆglu IH, Eren H, Yavuz Y, Kamburo˘glu K, “Diagnostic accuracy of different display types in detection of recurrent caries under restorations by using CBCT,” Dentomaxillofac Radiol, 2016. 45: 20160099.
[4]  Vedpathak PR, Gondivkar SM, Bhoosreddy AR, Shah KR, Verma GR1, Mehrotra GP1, Nerkar AC1, “Cone Beam Computed Tomography:An Effective Tool in Detecting Caries Under Fixed Dental Prostheses” J Clin Diagn Res, 10(8). ZC10-3. 2016.
[5]  Kamburoğlu K, Sönmez G, Berktaş ZS, Kurt H, Özen D, “Effects of various cone beam computed tomography settings on the detection of recurrent caries under restorations in extracted primary teeth”, Imaging Sci Dent, 47(2).109-115. 2017.
[6]  Sousa Melo SL, Furtado Belem MD, Prieto LT, Machado Tabchoury CP, Haiter-Neto F, “Comparison of cone beam CT and digital intraoral radiography performance in the detection of artificially induced recurrent caries-like lesions” Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol, 124(3). 306-314. 2017.
[7]  Young SM, Lee JT, Hodges RJ, Chang TL, Elashoff DA, White SC, “A comparative study of high-resolution cone beam computed tomography and charge-coupled device sensors for detecting caries” Dentomaxillofac Radiol, 38. 445-51. 2009.
[8]  Cheng JG, Zhang ZL, Wang XY, Zhang ZY, Ma XC, Li G, “Detection accuracy of proximal caries by phosphor plate and conebeam computerizedtomography images scanned with different resolutions” Clin Oral Investig, 16(4). 1015-21. 2012.
[9]  Kamburoglu K, Kurt H, Kolsuz E, O¨ ztas¸ B, Tatar I, Çelik HH, “Occlusal caries depth measurements obtained by five different imaging modalities” J Digit Imaging, 24. 804-13. 2011.
[10]  Qu X, Li G, Zhang Z, Ma X, “Detection accuracy of in vitro approximal caries by cone beam computed tomography images” Eur J Radiol, 23, 2010 [Epub ahead of print].
[11]  Murat S, Kamburo˘glu K, Isayev A, Kurs¸un S, Y¨uksel S, “Visibility of artificial buccal recurrent caries under restorations using different radiographic techniques” Oper Dent, 38. 197-207. 2013.
[12]  Kasraei S, Shokri A, Poorolajal J, Khajeh S, Rahmani H,”Comparison of ConeBeamComputedTomography and Intraoral Radiography in Detection ofRecurrent Caries under Composite Restorations” Braz Dent J, 28(1). 85-91. 2017.
[13]  European Commission. Radiation Protection 172, Evidence Based Guidelines on Cone Beam CT for Dental and Maxillofacial Radiology. Luxembourg” Office for Official Publications of the European Communities: 2012. Available from:
[14]  Horner K, “Cone-beam computed tomography: time for an evidence-based approach” Prim Dent J, 2(1). 22-31. 2013.
[15]  Ludlow JB, Davies-Ludlow LE, Brooks SL, Howerton WB, “Dosimetry of 3 CBCT devices for oral and maxillofacial radiology: CB Mercuray, NewTom 3 G and i-CAT” Dentomaxillofac Radiol, 35.219-226. 2006.
[16]  Ludlow JB, Davies-Ludlow LE, White SC, “Patient risk related to common dental radiographic examinations: the impact of 2007 International Commission on Radiological Protection recommendations regarding dose calculation” J Am Dent Assoc, 139. 1237-1243. 2008.
[17]  Rathore S, Tyndall D, Wright J, Everett E, “Ex vivo comparison of Galileos cone beam CT and intraoral radiographs in detecting occlusal caries” Dentomaxillofac Radiol, 41. 489-93. 2012.
[18]  Cebe F, Aktan AM, Ozsevik AS, Ciftci ME, Surmelioglu HD, “The Effect of Different Restorative Materials on the Detection of Approximal Caries in Cone Beam Computed Tomography Scans with and without the Metal Artefact Reduction Mode” Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol, 123(3). 392-400. 2017.
[19]  Haiter-Neto F, Wenzel A, Gotfredsen E, “Diagnostic accuracy of cone beam computed tomography scans compared with intraoral image modalities for detection of caries lesions” Dentomaxillofac Radiol, 37. 18-22. 2008.
[20]  Kamburo˘glu K, Murat S, Yuksel SP, Cebeci AR, Paksoy CS, “Occlusal caries detection by using a cone-beam CT with different voxel resolutions and a digital intraoral sensor” Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod , 109(5). 63-9. 2010.
[21]  Qu XM, Li G, Ludlow JB, Zhang ZY, Ma XC, “Effective radiation dose of ProMax 3D cone-beam computerized tomography scanner with different protocols” Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol and Endod, 110. 770-776. 2010.
[22]  Pauwels R, Beinsberger J, Collaert B et al, “Effective dose range for dental cone beam computed tomography scanners” Eur J Radiol, 2010.
[23]  Hewlett ER, Caputo AA, Wrobet DC, “Glass ionomer bond strength and treatment of dentin with polyacrylic acid” J Prosthet Dent, 66(6). 767-72. 1991.
[24]  Berry EA, Powers JM, “Bond strength of glass ionomers to coronal and radicular dentin Oper Dent, 19. 122-6.1994.
[25]  Ewoldsen N, Covey D, Lavin M, “The physical and adhesive properties of dental cements used for atraumatic restorative treatment” Spec Care Dentist, 17 (1). 9-24.1997.
[26]  Pereira PN, Yamada T, Inokoshi S, Burrow MF, Sano H, Tagami J, “Adhesion of resin-modified glass-ionomer cement using resin-bonding systems J Dent, 26.479-85.1998.
[27]  Yap AU, Tan AC, Goh AT, Goh DC, Chin KC, “Effect of surface treatment and cement maturation on the bond strength of resin modified glass ionomers to dentin”, Oper Dent, 28(6). 728-33, 2003.
[28]  Kayipmaz S, Sezgin O¨ S, Saricaog˘ lu ST, Can G, “An in vitro comparison of diagnostic abilities of conventional radiography, storage phosphor, and cone beam computed tomography to determine occlusal and approximal caries” Eur J Radiol, 80. 478-82. 2011.
[29]  Spin-Neto R, Gotfredsen E, Wenzel A, “Impact of voxel size variation on CBCTbased diagnostic outcome in dentistry: a systematic review” J Digit Imaging, 26(4). 813-20. 2013.