Effect of interface surface design on the fracture behavior of bilayered composites

Abstract

This study aimed to evaluate the effect of different interface designs on the load‐bearing capacity of bilayered composite structures (BLS). Cylindrical specimens of BLS were prepared from base composite of 3.5 mm thickness and surface composite of 1.5 mm thickness (n = 80). Two different base composites – flowable bulk‐fill (FBF) [smart dentin replacement (SDR)] and short fiber‐reinforced (FRC) (everX Posterior) – were evaluated, and conventional composite (G‐ænial Posterior) was used as the surface layer. Four different interface designs were used: (i) pyramidal; (ii) mesh; (iii) linear grooves; and (iv) flat surface (control). Three‐dimensional printed molds were fabricated to standardize the interface design between the surface and the base composites. The specimens were then statically loaded with a steel ball until fracture using a universal testing machine. Fracture types were classified into catastrophic, complete, and partial bulk. ANOVA revealed that both the material and the interface design had a statistically significant effect on the load‐bearing capacity. Flowable bulk‐fill showed lower mean load‐bearing capacity than FRC in all the interface designs tested, except for the flat surface design. Fracture analysis showed that FRC demonstrated up to 100% partial bulk fractures with the pyramid interface design, but no incidence of catastrophic bulk fracture. By contrast, FBF demonstrated up to 84.6% and 40% catastrophic bulk fractures with the flat interface design but no incidence of partial bulk fracture. Consequently, the interface designs studied enhanced the fracture behavior of BLS.

Fatigue behavior of endodontically treated premolars restored with different fiber-reinforced designs

“…Most dental practitioners regularly restore RCT upper premolars with conventional fiber posts, but this approach is a matter of debate [4]. There are studies to indicate that RCT upper premolars without a fiber post show similar fracture resistance to those restored with a post [59][60][61], while other studies showed superior results when a conventional FRC post was used compared to a composite filling alone [62,63]. In our present setup, there was no difference between teeth restored with a conventional composite filling alone (Group A3) or with a conventional FRC post and flowable SFRC (Group C4).…”