Corrigendum

This article refers to:

Measuring the Radiopacity of Flowable Resin Composites Using Scanned Radiograph Images

Article title: “Measuring the Radiopacity of Flowable Resin Composites Using Scanned Radiograph Images”

Authors: G. Furtos, B. Baldea, L. Silaghi-Dumitrescu, D. Bratu, M. Moldovan, and C. Prejmerean

Journal: Particulate Science and Technology

Bibliometrics: Volume 30, Issue 5, pages 391–402

DOI: 10.1080/02726351.2011.589489

A revised version of Table 2, originally published in Particulate Science and Technology, volume 30, number 5, 2012, pages 391–402, “Measuring the radiopacity of flowable resin composites using scanned radiograph images,” by G. Furtos, B. Baldea, L. Silaghi-Dumitrescu, D. Bratu, M. Moldovan, and C. Prejmerean, appears here. This updated version of the table more accurately explains the data.

Table 2. Percent filler of flowable resin composites obtained by combustion

No.	Product	Mean (SD) wt% by combustion	Mean (SD) vol% by combustion
1	Filtek Supreme XT (A3)	69.74 (1.76)^a	53.56 (2.08)^a
2	PermaFlo (A1)	69.51 (0.72)^a,b	53.28 (0.84)^a,b
3	PermaFlo DC (A2)	68.75 (0.24)^a,b	52.38 (0.28)^a,b
4	Accolade PV (A2)	62.10 (0.15)^c	45.04 (0.16)^c
5	Tetric EvoFlow (Bleach L)	61.91 (0.15)^c,d	44.83 (0.16)^c,b
6	StarFill 2B	61.37 (0.30)^c,d,e	44.27 (0.31)^c,d,e
7	Accolade SRO (A2)	61.09 (0.34)^c,d,e	43.98 (0.35)^c,d,e
8	StarFlow (A2)	57.14 (0.63)	40.00 (0.61)
9	SYNERGY Nano Formula
10	(Super White)
11	(A3.5/B3)	55.60 (0.30)^f	38.50 (0.29)^f
12	(A4/M5)	54.50 (0.12)^f,g	37.46 (0.11)^f,g
13	(A2/B2)	54.09 (0.33)^g,h	36.96 (0.21)^g,h
	(A3/D3)	53.90 (0.12)^g,h,i	36.90 (0.12)^g,h,i
		53.68 (0.10)^g,h,i,j	36.68 (0.10)^g,h,i,j
14	Wave (A3)	53.67 (0.35)^g,h,i,j	36.68 (0.33)^g,h,i,j,k
15	Tetric EvoFlow (A3)	52.27 (0.26)^k	35.38 (0.23)^j,k,l
16	els flow (A3op)	52.26 (0.08)^k	35.37 (0.08)^j,k,l

Notes

wt%: percentage of filler by weight.

vol%: percentage of filler by volume.

SD: Standard deviation.

Superscript letters within columns for wt% and vol% indicate mean values not statistically significant different from each other, when compared using the Tukey test, P > 0.05.