Objectives: : To compare the quantified radiopacity of five bulk fill composites in digital dental radiographs. Material and methods: : An in-vitro observational study was performed with five dental restoration materials: I) Bulk Fill Surefil SDR + flow (R) (Dentsply Sirona (R), York, PA, USA), II) Bulk Fill Sonic Fill (R) (Kerr Corp.(R), Orange, CA, USA); III) Filtek Bulk Fill flow (R) (3M Company (R), Maplewood, MN, USA); IV) Tetric N Ceram Bulk Fill (R) (Ivoclar Vivadent (R), Schaan, Liechtenstein); and V) Aura (R) (SDI Ltd.(R), Victoria, Australia). Digital radiographs were taken standardly from four samples of each composite (n = 20). The radiopacity inherent detected in the radiographs was quantified using a 9-level aluminum scale. Results: : ANOVA and Tukey's test showed statistically significant differences between the radiopacity of all bulk fill composites (p < 0.0001), except between I and IV (p = 1.0). Spearman's outcomes revealed that only composite I had positive moderate (rS = 0.63) correlation with the respective radiopacity level in the aluminum scale (p = 0.027). Conclusion: : Most of the bulk fill composites addressed in this study were distinguishable from each other based on their radiopacity. The identification of type and even brand of composites may be a promising task in human identification. However, this procedure remains challenging and the scientific evidence behind it is still scarce in the forensic literature.
