A Comparative Evaluation of the Radiopacity of Contemporary Restorative CAD/CAM Blocks Using Digital Radiography Based on the Impact of Material Composition

Table 2

MGVs in pixels (mean ± standard deviation) and statistical differences between different CAD/CAM restorative materials (for each group n = 10).

Groups

Mean ± SD

Minimum

Maximum

Enamel (mean = 93.60)

Dentin (mean = 58.10)

AL1 (mean = 57.10)

AL2 (mean = 74.00)

AL3 (mean = 97.70)

AL4 (mean = 132.3)

AL5 (mean = 152.0)

AL14 (mean = 234.9)

AL15 (mean = 240.4)

AL16 (mean = 249.6)

Prettau

238.5 ± 13.61^b

213

254

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

NS

NS

NS

Vita Suprinity

138.3 ± 11.27^d

117

155

S

S

S

S

S

NS

S

S

S

S

Vita Enamic

63 ± 10.73^e

46

78

S

NS

NS

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

Shofu

45.50 ± 11.40^a

34

69

S

S

NS

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

Pekkton

35.50 ± 4.428^a

29

43

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

BioHPP

21.20 ± 4.940^c

14

29

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

The MGVs of all the materials tested, enamel, dentin, and Al step-wedge were compared by a paired sample t-test. Different letters among tested groups indicate significant differences (p < 0.05). NS, nonsignificant ; S, significant .