Mechanical characterisation of multi vs. uni-directional carbon fiber frameworks for dental implant applications

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to investigate the mechanical characteristics of dental implant frameworks made of unidirectional carbon fiber composite (UF) and to compare them with those provided by multidirectional carbon fiber composite (IF). Methods: 8 different UF samples were used. The samples were initially evaluated by optical microscope and SEM then non-destructive and destructive mechanical tests were performed on 4 samples in order to evaluate dynamic, static elastic modulus, wettability and ultimate strength. The outcomes were compared with those of IF samples tested following the same protocol-data reported in a previous published paper. Afterwards 4 samples were aged for 60 days in isotonic saline solution at 37 °C simulating the human saliva. The same tests were performed on the aged samples. Results The dynamic elastic modulus was lower for UF (78.1 GPa for UF vs. 92.2 GPa for IF) as well as the static elastic modulus (71.0 GPa for UF vs. 84.5 GPa for IF). The ultimate strength value was 582 MPa for the IF samples and 700 MPa for the UF. The ageing process of the UF samples evidence no appreciable variation, with small differences that falls within the experimental error. Significance: Unidirectional carbon fiber-reinforced composite appears suitable for the fabrication of frameworks for implant-supported full-arch dentures. The dynamic elastic modulus was higher for UF while the static elastic modulus was higher for IF. The aging process seems not able to significantly alter the mechanical properties of the material. Further research is needed to evaluate the clinical significance of such differences.

Stress Concentration in Open Hole Laminate Composites Under Bending: Potential Application in Dental Implant Prosthesis

“…The main differences between the results were the used raw material, as Costa 62 used a pre-impregnated carbon fiber with PPS, besides the use of unidirectional fibers aligned in the loading direction provides optimum strength. This research comprised a woven fabric that limits the fibers aligned in loading direction by 50%, in addition, the woven generates crimp regions which induces failure by buckling in the compression side 61,63 . This type of failure was reported in the previous section that comprises the misaligned fiber due to the waviness generated by woven.…”

“…The use of infrastructures in composites has recently been explored due to the advantages of having some advantages over metallic alloys, such as high flexural strength, high modulus of elasticity, low specific weight, allowing chemical adhesion of resins on the infrastructure and lower production cost 17,26,27,63,73 .…”

Framework Materials for Full-Arch Implant-Supported Rehabilitations: A Systematic Review of Clinical Studies

“…However, in contrast with metal alloy, CFRC is an anisotropic and non-homogeneous material, due to the fact that it is created by superimposing layers of carbon fibers embedded in a polymer matrix. For this reason, the manufacturing technique strongly affects the final characteristics of the prostheses [53]. A preliminary in vitro study on carbon fiber frameworks for dental implant applications [7] also reported that intact and fragmented carbon fiber samples showed optimal biocompatibility.…”

Strain rate‐dependent deformation behaviors of multi‐layer carbon fiber reinforced polymer laminates

“…The flexible weavability of carbon fiber also facilitate the combination design and fabrication of CFRP laminates with diverse ply orientations and layers, which would substantially affect the static and dynamic deformation behaviors and further regulate the mechanical properties. Considering the extensively potential applications of CFRP in the fields involving aviation, automobile, architecture and biomedical engineering fields, etc., 2–4 which would be confronted with various load types, including quasi static and dynamic loads, the sensibility of multi‐layer CFRP laminates to strain rate need to be taken into account 5,6 …”