Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Loading next page...
/lp/springer-journals/influence-of-glass-fiber-reinforcement-on-the-flexural-strength-of-s9tMBbmgIR
- Publisher
- Springer Journals
- Copyright
- Copyright © 2015 by Caixeta et al.
- Subject
- Material Science; Surfaces and Interfaces, Thin Films; Mechanical Engineering; Biomaterials
- eISSN
- 2196-4351
- DOI
- 10.1186/s40563-015-0053-1
- Publisher site
- See Article on Publisher Site
Abstract
rdguiraldo@gmail.com University of North Parana, Fiber-reinforced composites have recently been advocated as an alternative to fixed Rua Marselha, 183, Londrina, metal framework prostheses. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of glass- PA CEP 86041-100, Brazil fiber reinforcement on the flexural strength of different resin composites. The tested composites were X-tra fil, Filtek Z350 XT Flow and Filtek Z350 XT commercially avail- able and reinforced with glass-fiber. Six groups of bars specimens (2 × 2 × 20 mm) were prepared (n = 10). The measurement of flexural strength of the resin composites was carried out by the three-point bending test. Data were subjected to ANOVA and post hoc Tukey’s tests (α = 0.05). The flexural strength of all composites was improved when combined with glass fiber. The bulk-fill X-tra fil composite (133.53 MPa) was the strongest fiber-reinforced material. Clinically, fiber reinforcement should be employed in extensive restorations to provide increased flexural strength. Keywords: Composites, Glass fiber, Structural reinforcement, Flexural strength Background Due to the enormous demand for conservative and aesthetic restorations [1], fiber-rein - forced composites (FRC) have recently been advocated as an alternative to fixed metal framework prostheses. Compared to metal prostheses, FRC restorations are lighter and more esthetic [1]. In addition, the restorations can be effectively adhered to dental tis - sues and cause less damage to remaining teeth [2]. Although the durability of this type of prosthesis is inferior to metal frameworks, much less time and cost are associated to its placement [2]. FRC’s durability has been reported differently in the related studies, so that the overall durability rate of 75–94.75 percent has been reported after three to 5 years [1, 3–5]. The use of composite materials in metal-free fixed partial dentures (FPDs) became feasible following the introduction of fiber reinforcement [ 6]. FRC-based FPDs have good resistance to masticatory forces [6] in addition to their low cost, improved aes- thetics, reduced weight, and favorable elastic modulus [7, 8]. Prosthetics manufactured from ceramic material have superior color stability and wear resistance, exhibit mar- ginal adhesion to tooth structure, and have the potential to damage unrestored oppos- ing teeth [9]. FRC materials are currently used not only for crowns and inlays, but also © 2015 Caixeta et al. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. Caixeta et al. Appl Adhes Sci (2015) 3:24 Page 2 of 6 for a variety of clinical esthetic restorations, for example the infrastructure of implant- supported crowns and for FPDs [10]. Although several fiber materials are commercially available, polyethylene and glass fiber reinforcing materials are the most popular [6]. Silanized glass fibers provide good adhesion to the polymer matrix, good aesthetic qual - ity, and improved strength of the resulting composite [8, 11]. The study has have exam - ined the effects of variables such as position, quantity, fiber orientation, and degree of adhesion between the fibers and polymer on the level of reinforcement [12]. FRC materials can adapt to dental contours and are easily manipulated during the bonding process. The materials also possess acceptable strength and clinical durability due to the integration of the fibers with the composite resin and the potential for attach - ment closer to the incisal edges of teeth, which is useful from a biomechanical perspec- tive [13, 14]. Problems with porcelain-fused-to-metal FPDs include poor aesthetics due to the exposed metal margin and harmful effects on periodontal tissues from the release of metal ions [9]. The increasing application of metal-free FPDs made using ceramic [15] or resin materials [16] is primarily due to advances in high-strength particulate com- posite resins [17], improved adhesion techniques [18], and the development of high- strength fiber-reinforced composites [19]. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of glass-fiber reinforcement on the flexural strength of different resin composites. The null hypotheses tested were (1) that there is no difference in flexural strength among specimens made with different resin composites (bulk-fill, flow, and conventional resin composites), and (2) glass fiber rein - forcement has no effect on flexural strength. Methods Specimen preparation Details of the materials used in this study are provided in Table 1. A total of 60 bar- shaped specimens in six groups (n = 10) were prepared in a metal mold (2 × 2 × 20 mm). The samples were prepared using the conventional nanoparticle-filled composite Filtek Z350 XT (batch number 775639; 3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA), Filtek Z350 XT Flow composite (batch number N509855; 3M ESPE), or the bulk-fill X-tra fil composite (batch number 1315355; Voco, Cuxhaven, Germany). The materials were placed in the metal mold in a single portion. Sets of 10 speci - mens of each composite were prepared neat and with pre-impregnated glass fiber Table 1 Materials used in the study Materials Manufacturer/batch number Chemical composition (weight %) Interlig Angelus, Londrina, PR, Brazil/31464 Glass fibers—60 ± 5 % Impregnated with 40 ± 5 % resin containing Bis-GMA, diurethane, barium glass X-tra fil Voco, Cuxhaven, Germany/1315355 Inorganic filler—86 %: Bis-GMA, UDMA, TEDMA Filtek Z350 XT Flow 3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA/N509855 Inorganic filler—65 %: Bis-GMA, TEGDMA, Bis- EMA Filtek Z350 XT universal 3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA/775639 Inorganic filler—78,5 %: Bis-GMA, Bis-EMA, UDMA, TEGDMA Bis-GMA bisphenylglycidyl dimethacrylate, BisEMA ethoxylated bisphenol‑ A dimethacrylate, TEGDMA triethylene glycol dimethacrylate, UDMA urethane dimethacrylate Caixeta et al. Appl Adhes Sci (2015) 3:24 Page 3 of 6 reinforcement (batch number 31464; Interlig, Angelus, Londrina, PR, Brazil). The com - posites were photoactivated with a 40-second exposure (940 mW/cm ) in three areas (extreme right, center, and extreme left) of the metal mold (top surfasse) using an LED lamp (Radii Cal; SDI, Bayswater, VIC, Australia). Following photoactivation, the speci- mens were stored dry at 37 °C for 24 h. The specimen surfaces were ground using 200-, 400-, and 600-grit SiC abrasive (Carborundum; Saint-Gobain Abrasives, Recife, PE, Bra- zil) to obtain polished, flat surfaces. The specimen dimensions were measured using a digital caliper (model CD-15C; Mitutoyo, Tokyo, Japan). All procedures were performed by a single operator to ensure standardization. Flexural strength test A three-point bending flexural test was performed on each specimen using a universal testing machine (DL2000, EMIC, Equipamentos e Sistemas de Ensaio LTDA, São José dos Pinhais, PR, Brazil). The load was applied perpendicular to the long axis of the speci - men at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min until fracture. The flexural strength (FS [MPa]) was calculated using the equation FS = 3 F L/2WH [20], in which F is the maxi- max max mum load in newtons, L is the distance between the support points (8 mm), and W and H are the specimen width and thickness in mm. Statistical analysis Mean values and standard deviations (SDs) for flexural strength measurements were cal - culated using the Minitab 16 program for Windows 8 (Minitab, State College, PA, USA). Normality of the data distributions was investigated using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov normality test. Results were compared using two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA, variables composite and fiber reinforcement) and Tukey’s test at a 5 % significance level (α = 0.05). Results Addition of glass fiber increased the flexural strength of all composites (Table 2, p = 0.013). The X-tra fil (102.86 MPa) and Filtek Z350 XT (101.51 MPa) composites without glass fiber had similar flexural performance, however, the X-tra fil composite experienced greater improvement when blended with glass fiber (133.53 MPa). The flex - ural strength of the Z350 XT Flow composite was also improved by addition of glass fiber, but the performance of this material was lower than the other two composites. Table 2 Mean flexural strength (MPa) for composites with and without fiber reinforcement with respective standard deviations Composite Flexural strength (MPa) Fiber Without fiber X-tra fil 133.53 (8.80) Aa 102.86 (6.39) Ab Filtek Z350 XT 116.14 (6.62) Ba 101.51 (6.66) Ab Filtek Z350 XT Flow 104.29 (9.05) Ca 82.70 (9.20) Bb Mean values followed by different uppercase letters in columns and lowercase letters in rows differed statistically in Tukey’s test at 5 % (p = 0.013). Standard deviations are in parentheses Caixeta et al. Appl Adhes Sci (2015) 3:24 Page 4 of 6 Discussion Flexural strength and modulus of elasticity are the two most important mechanical characteristics in the evaluation of the fiber reinforcement systems [1]. The three-point bending test is a simple method used for comparison of the load bearing capacity of dif- ferent unidirectional FRC beams [21]. The flexural strength, which is measured in the three-point bending test, determines the behavior of the material under simultaneous tensile and compressive loading [1, 2]. FRC has been used in a variety of dental applications, including denture bases and posts for root canal treatment [22], but it has only recently been used for FPDs [9]. Inlay-retained FPDs reinforced with FRC have a reported survival rate of 72–75 % at 36–63 months after treatment [5]. It has also been noted [5] that the functional survival rate can be improved to 93 % by repair or reinstallation, because the cause of failure in most cases is attributable to dislodgment or partial fracture. From the above discus- sion, it may be inferred that fiber reinforcement is effective, but a sufficient thickness of veneering composite must be applied to the connector area to prevent fractures [9]. Glass used for the fabrication of such fibers is an amorphous tetrahydrosilicate-based material [1], and the chemical and physical characteristics are distinctly different from organic fibers [1]. Improved adhesion of composites and glass fibers could be due to the sílica contents of the fiber and consequent stronger bonds which in turn lead to an increased flexural strength [23]. Another reason for the high flexural strength of the glass fiber and composites resin combination could be the strongest chemical bond between the glass fiber and the dental polymers [1]. X-tra fil, a bulk fill composite, contains Bis- GMA, UDMA, and TEDMA with 86 wt % filler particules, while Z350 XT contains Bis- GMA, Bis-EMA, UDMA, TEGDMA with 78.5 wt % filler particles and Filtek Z350 XT Flow contains Bis-GMA, TEGDMA, Bis-EMA with 65 wt % filler particles. Moreover, the combination composite with glass fiber presented greater flexural strength than glass fiber alone [1]. One approach to increase the adhesion of fibers to a polymer matrix is resin impreg - nation of fibers before application [12]. An effective impregnation process enables the resin to come into contact with the surface of every fiber [12]. Wetting the fibers with resin monomer has been a commonly used method. However, although the monomer increases the adhesion of fibers to the matrix, residual monomer may impair other prop - erties [12]. The pre-impregnated fiber used in the present study was developed to over - come this problem [12]. Investigators have confirmed the reinforcing effect of fibers on different polymer types [11, 24, 25]. The increase in flexural strength results from the transfer of stress from the weak polymer matrix to the fibers, which have a high tensile strength [24]. The stronger the adhesion between the fiber and the matrix, the greater the strengthening effect [25]. In composites containing both reinforcing fiber and par - ticulate fillers, the interfacial adhesion and matching of flexural modulus of these two phases plays an important role in increasing the mechanical properties of the material, and further research should be conducted to improve the interfacial bond strength [19]. Reinforcing composites with polyethylene fibers can yield enhanced mechanical properties [26] such as stiffness, strength, toughness, and fatigue resistance [27]. Fib - ers provide a load-enhancing effect in brittle resin materials by acting as a stress-bear - ing component and by crack-stopping or crack-deflecting mechanisms [26]. Fixed Caixeta et al. Appl Adhes Sci (2015) 3:24 Page 5 of 6 fiber-reinforced composite bridges offer a suitable alternative to replace missing perma - nent anterior teeth, particularly in growing children until a fixed prosthesis can be pro - vided at the end of the growth period [28]. Methodologically, limitations such as sample size and aging processes (alternating thermal stresses, mechanical stresses, wear and water storage) should be taken into consideration. Despite the importance of laboratory studies to answer some questions over the short term, the real performance of restora- tions can only be determined by long-term clinical trials [29]. In specimens in which fiber reinforcement was not used, there were no differences in flexural strength between X-tra fil and Filtek Z350 XT composite. Filtek Z350 XT exhib - ited high flexural strength despite an inhomogeneous distribution of filler particles [20, 30], while X-tra fil inherently contained a greater proportion of fillers. Filtek Z350 XT Flow demonstrated lower flexural strength, probably due to a lower filler content. How - ever, when other tests were performed (such as the push-out test) the results were not the same [31]. Thus, future studies are needed to demonstrate the efficacy of bulk-fill composites that performed well during flexural testing in this study. The null hypotheses discussed earlier must be rejected because (1) there were differences in flexural strength among specimens prepared from different resin composites, and (2) addition of glass fiber affected the strength of the resulting composite. Conclusions Analysis of the flexural strength indicates that glass fiber reinforcement improved the performance of any of the three composites tested. Fiber reinforcement showed high- est flexural strength with the bulk-fill composite, while the lowest flexural strength was observed for the flowable composite. Authors’ contributions RVC, SBB, ENK and AGJ participated in performing the experiments. EMFJ and MBL contributed to the writing of the manuscript. ACD performed the statistical analysis. RDG conceived of the study, participating in its design and coordina- tion, helping to drafting the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Received: 15 November 2015 Accepted: 13 December 2015 References 1. Sharafeddin F, Alavi AA, Talei Z. Flexural strength of glass and polyethylene fiber combined with three different composites. J Dent Shir. 2013;14(1):13–9. 2. Pereira CL, Demarco FF, Cenci MS, Osinaga PW, Piovesan EM. Flexural strength of composites: influences of polyeth- ylene fiber reinforcement and type of composite. Clin Oral Investig. 2003;7(2):116–9. 3. Heumen CC, Dijken JW, Tanner J, Pikaar R, Lassila LV, Creugers NH, Vallittu PK, Kreulen CM. Five-year survival of 3-unit fiber-reinforced composite fixed partial dentures in the anterior area. Dent Mater. 2009;25(6):820–7. 4. Piovesan EM, Demarco FF, Piva E. Fiber-reinforced fixed partial dentures: a preliminary retrospective clinical study. J Appl Oral Sci. 2006;14(2):100–4. 5. Vallittu PK. Survival rates of resin-bonded, glass fiber-reinforced composite fixed partial dentures with a mean follow-up of 42 months: a pilot study. J Prost Dent. 2004;91(3):241–6. 6. Tabatabaei MH, Hasani Z, Ahmadi E. In vitro evaluation of veneering composites and fibers on the color of fiber- reinforced composite restorations. J Dent. 2014;11(4):473–80. 7. Van Heumen CC, Kreulen CM, Creugers NH. Clinical studies of fiber-reinforced resin-bonded fixed partial dentures: a systematic review. J Oral Sci. 2009;117(1):1–6. 8. Kolbeck C, Rosentritt M, Behr M, Lang R, Handel G. In vitro study of fracture strength and marginal adaptation of polyethylene- fi-ber-reinforced-composite versus glass-fibre-reinforced-composite fixed partial dentures. J Oral Rehabil. 2002;29(7):668–74. Caixeta et al. Appl Adhes Sci (2015) 3:24 Page 6 of 6 9. Waki T, Nakamura T, Nakamura T, Kinuta S, Wakabayashi K, Yatani H. Fracture resistance of inlay-retained fixed partial dentures reinforced with fiber-reinforced composite. Dent Mater J. 2006;25(1):1–6. 10. Tanoue N, Sawase T, Matsumura H, McCabe JF. Properties of indirect composites reinforced with monomer-impreg- nated glass fiber. Odontology. 2012;100(2):192–8. 11. Hamza TA, Rosenstiel SF, El-Hosary MM, Ibraheem RM. Fracture resistance of fiber-reinforced PMMA interim fixed partial dentures. J Prosthodont. 2006;15(4):223–8. 12. Duymus ZY, Karaalioglu FO, Suleyman F. Flexural strength of provisional crown and fixed partial denture resins both with and without reinforced fiber. J Mater Sci Nanotechnol. 2014;2(1):102. doi:10.15744/2348-9812.1.302. 13. Karaman AI, Kir N, Belli S. Four applications of reinforced polyethylene fiber material in orthodontic practice. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2002;121(6):650–4. 14. Jahanbin A, Abtahi M, Heravi F, Hoseini M, Shafaee H. Analysis of different positions of fiber-reinforced com- posite retainers versus multistrand wire retainers using the finite element. Int J Biomater. 2014;2014:581029. doi:10.1155/2014/581029. 15. Olsson KG, Furst B, Andersson B, Carlsson GE. A long-term retrospective and clinical follow-up study of In-Ceram Alumina FPDs. Int J Prosthodont. 2003;16(2):150–6. 16. Vallittu PK, Sevelius C. Resin-bonded, glass fiberreinforced composite fixed partial dentures: a clinical study. J Pros- thet Dent. 2000;84(8):413–8. 17. Mandikos MN, McGivney GP, Davis E, Bush PJ, Carter JM. A comparison of the wear resistance and hardness of indirect composite resins. J Prosthet Dent. 2001;85(4):386–95. 18. Shimura R, Nikaido T, Yamauti M, Ikeda M, Tagami J. Influence of curing method and storage condition on micro - hardness of dual-cure resin cements. Dental Mater J. 2005;24(1):70–5. 19. Bae JM, Kim KN, Hattori M, Hasegawa K, Yoshinari M, Kawada E, Oda Y. Fatigue strengths of particulate filler compos- ites reinforced with fibers. Dent Mater J. 2004;23(2):166–74. 20. Lopes MB, Serralvo AD, Felizardo KR, Hirata BS, Guiraldo RD, Berger SB, Borges AH, Gonini-Júnior A. Evaluation of the flexural resistance and stress contraction of a silorane-based composite submitted to different protocols of polym- erization. Appl Adhes Sci. 2014;2:23. 21. Behr M, Rosentritt M, Leibrock A, Schmeider-Feyrer S, Handel G. In vitro study of fracture strength and marginal adaptation of fiber-reinforced adhesive fixed partial inlay dentures. J Dent. 1999;27(2):163–8. 22. Kanie T, Arikawa H, Fujii K, Ban S. Light-curing reinforcement for denture base resin using a glass fiber cloth pre- impregnated with various urethane oligomers. Dent Mater J. 2004;23(3):291–6. 23. Hammouda IM. Reinforcement of conventional glassionomer restorative material with short glass fibers. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2009;2(1):73–81. doi:10.1016/j.jmbbm.2008.04.002. 24. Nohrstrom T, Vallittu P, Yli-Urpo A. The effect of placement and quantity of glass fibers on the fracture resistance of interim fixed partial dentures. Int J Prosthodont. 2000;13(1):72–8. 25. Solnit GS. The effect of methyl methacrylate reinforcements with silane treated and untreated glass fibers. J Prosthet Dent. 1991;66(3):310–4. 26. Issac DH. Engineering aspects of the structure and properties of polymer-fibre composites. In: Proceedings of the first symposium on fiber reinforced plastic in dentistry, 1998;1–21. 27. Ramakrishna Y, Munshi AK. Fiber reinforced composite loop space maintainer: an alternative to the conventional band and loop. Contemp Clin Dent. 2012;3(5):26–8. 28. Gupta A, Yelluri RK, Munshi AK. Fiber-reinforced composite resin bridge: a treatment option in children. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2015;8(1):62–5. 29. Garoushi S, Mangoush E, Vallittu P, Lassila L. Short fiber reinforced composite: a new alternative for direct onlay restorations. Open Dent J. 2013;7:181–5. doi:10.2174/1874210601307010181. 30. Palin WM, Fleming GJ, Burke FJ, Marquis PM, Randall RC. The influence of short and medium-term water immersion on the hydrolytic stability of novel low-shrink dental composites. Dent Mater. 2005;21(9):852–63. doi:10.1016/j. dental.2005.01.004. 31. Caixeta RV, Guiraldo RD, Kaneshima EN, Barbosa AS, Picolotto CP, Lima AE, Gonini Júnior A, Berger SB. Push-out bond strength of restorations with bulk-fill, flow, and conventional resin composites. ScientificWorldJournal. 2015;2015:452976. doi:10.1155/2015/452976.
Journal
Applied Adhesion Science – Springer Journals
Published: Dec 21, 2015