Evaluation of a new fiber‐reinforced resin composite

Abstract

Efficacy of the usage of an experimental fiber-reinforced composite (FRC) on mechanical properties of an indirect composite was investigated by means of three-point bending and Charpy impact tests. Bond strength between the FRC and the indirect composite was also evaluated by tensile testing. The FRC consisted of a matrix resin with 25% silanized milled glass fiber (11-microm diameter, 150-microm length) and 5% colloidal silica. The values of strain of proportional limit, total strain, and fracture energy of the FRC during the bending test (1.2%, 10.4%, and 41.6 x 10(-3) J) were significantly higher than those of the indirect composite (0.1%, 2.5%, and 11.9 x 10(-3) J). The impact strengths of the 1-mm specimens with FRC ranged from 15.2 to 15.9 kJ/m(2), and were significantly higher than that of the control (3.1 kJ/m(2)). The 2-mm specimens showed significant difference from the control when the FRC thickness was equal or greater than 0.5 mm. The bond strength after the thermocycling was 15.2 MPa, and all of the specimens exhibited cohesive fracture inside the indirect composite. Based upon the results, it was concluded that the FRC tested in this study improved toughness and impact resistance of the indirect composite. The interfacial bonding between the FRC and the indirect composite was strong enough to prevent delamination.

Effect of fiber-premixed indirect resin composite substructure on fracture resistance of MOD composite inlays adhered with two different adhesive resin cements

“…A previous study 12) reported that the impact resistance of indirect composite was affected by the thickness of FMC. Therefore, in this study, influence of this variable was stringently excluded by measuring each element of the cavity preparation to ensure uniform FMC thickness.…”

“…The UDPAC monomer used for FMC possesses a soft segment of polyaliphatic carbonate segment 12) . While the high impact resistance of FMC could be attributed chiefly to the silanized milled glass fiber (Table 1), the ductile property of the FMC should be ascribed to the soft segment of the UDPAC monomer.…”

“…While the high impact resistance of FMC could be attributed chiefly to the silanized milled glass fiber (Table 1), the ductile property of the FMC should be ascribed to the soft segment of the UDPAC monomer. Indeed, the ductile property of FMC seemed to be more pronounced when compared against the stiff properties of indirect resin composite, as the fracture energy of the FMC was approximately 3.5 times that of indirect resin composite 12) . Nonetheless, combining these two different types of materials might have improved the impact resistance of the indirect rein composite, as gleaned from the results of the present study.…”

“…Satisfactory interfacial bonding between the FMC and indirect composite, and improved toughness and impact resistance of the indirect resin composite have been reported 12) . Although most reinforced composite systems are applicable for fabrication of crowns 5,6,9,10) and bridges 7,8) , the FMC can be used only for single tooth restorations as a core material in crowns, onlays, and inlays.…”

“…The composition of FMC has been reported by a dental manufacturer and detailed in a previous study 12) . It contained UDPAC as comonomer at 41.93 wt% and TEGDMA as matrix resin at 27.82 wt%, as well as silanized milled glass fiber at 24.84 wt% and colloidal silica as filler at 4.97 wt%.…”