Evaluation of the radiopacity of calcium hydroxide- and glass-ionomer-based root canal sealers M. Tanomaru-Filho 1 , E.G Jorge 1 , J.M.G. Tanomaru 1 & M. Gonc ¸ alves 2 1 Department of Restorative Dentistry; 2 Department of Radiology, Araraquara Dental School, Sa ˜o Paulo State University - UNESP, Brazil Abstract Tanomaru-Filho M, Jorge EG, Tanomaru JMG, Gonc ¸ al- ves M. Evaluation of the radiopacity of calcium hydroxide- and glass-ionomer-based root canal sealers. International Endodontic Journal, 41, 50–53, 2008. Aim To evaluate the radiopacity of calcium hydrox- ide-based root canal sealers (Acroseal, Sealapex and Sealer 26), a glass-ionomer-based sealer (Activ GP Sealer) and a zinc oxide and eugenol-based sealer (Intrafill). Methodology Five disc-shaped specimens (10 · 1 mm) were fabricated from each material, according to the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 6876/2001 standard. After setting of the mate- rials, radiographs were taken using occlusal films and a graduated aluminum step-wedge varying from 2 to 16 mm in thickness. The dental X-ray unit (GE1000) was set at 50 Kvp, 10 mA, 18 pulses s )1 and distance of 33.5 cm. The radiographs were digitized and the radiopacity compared with that of the aluminum step-wedge, using WIXWIN-2000 software (Gendex). Data (mm Al) were submitted to ANOVA and Tukey test. Results Intrafill was the most radiopaque material (7.67 mm Al) followed by Sealer 26 (6.33 mm Al), Sealapex (6.05 mm Al) and Acroseal (4.03 mm Al). Activ GP was the least radiopaque material (1.95 mm Al, P < 0.05). Conclusions The sealers evaluated in this study had different radiopacities. However, except for the glass- ionomer-based sealer, all materials had radiopacity values above the minimum recommended by the ISO standard. Keywords: radiology, radiopacity, root canal filling materials. Received 9 March 2007; accepted 17 May 2007 Introduction Ideally, root canal sealers should present, among other physicochemical properties, sufficient radiopac- ity to be distinguished from adjacent anatomical structures (McComb & Smith 1976, Beyer-Olsen and Ørstavik 1981, Katz et al. 1990, Imai & Komabayashi 2003), such as dentine and bone (Laghios et al. 2000). Higginbotham (1967) was the first to publish a study comparing the radiopacity of various endo- dontic sealers and gutta-percha cones used for root canal filling. Later, Eliasson & Haasken (1979) established a comparison standard for radiopacity studies in which the optical radiographic densities of several impression materials were measured and the values expressed as an equivalent thickness of alum- inum capable of producing similar radiographic density. Beyer-Olsen & Ørstavik (1981) included in their studies a reproducible comparison standard using a 2-mm-increment aluminum step-wedge to determine the radiopacity of several root canal sealers. Their results showed that most investigated materials were more radiopaque than dentine. Tanomaru-Filho et al. (2007) evaluated the radiopacity of five root canal sealers (AH Plus, Intrafill, Roeko Seal, Epiphany and EndoRez) using a graduated aluminum step-wedge varying from 2 to 16 mm in thickness. AH Plus and Correspondence: Ma ´rio Tanomaru Filho, Rua Humaita ´, 1901, apto. 182, Centro, 14801-385 Araraquara, SP, Brasil (Tel.: +55-16-3301-6390; fax: +55-16-3301-6392; e-mail: tanomaru@uol.com.br). doi:10.1111/j.1365-2591.2007.01309.x International Endodontic Journal, 41, 50–53, 2008 ª 2007 International Endodontic Journal 50