The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 7 , ISSUE 4 ( September, 2006 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Fiber-reinforced Composite Substructure: Load-bearing Capacity of an Onlay Restoration and Flexural Properties of the Material

Lippo V.J. Lassila, Pekka K. Vallittu, Sufyan K. Garoushi, Arzu Tezvergil

Citation Information : Lassila LV, Vallittu PK, Garoushi SK, Tezvergil A. Fiber-reinforced Composite Substructure: Load-bearing Capacity of an Onlay Restoration and Flexural Properties of the Material. J Contemp Dent Pract 2006; 7 (4):1-8.

DOI: 10.5005/jcdp-7-4-1

License: CC BY-NC 3.0

Published Online: 00-09-2006

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2006; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim

The aim of this study was to determine the static load-bearing capacity of composite resin onlay restorations made of particulate filler composite (PFC) with two different types of fiber-reinforced composite (FRC) substructures. In addition, flexural properties of the material combination and the effect of polymerization devices were tested.

Methods and Materials

Specimens were prepared to simulate an onlay restoration, which consisted of 2 to 3 mm of FRC layer as a substructure (short random and continuous bidirectional fiber orientation) and a 1 mm surface layer of PFC. Control specimens were prepared from plain PFC. In Group A the specimens were incrementally polymerized only with a hand-light curing unit for 40 s, while in Group B the specimens were post-cured in a light-curing oven for 15 min before they were statically loaded with a steel ball.

Bar-shaped test specimens were prepared to measure the flexural properties of material combination using a three-point bending test (ISO 10477).

Results

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed all specimens with a FRC substructure have higher values of static load-bearing capacity and flexural properties than those obtained with plain PFC (p<0.001).

Conclusion

The load-bearing capacity of all the specimens decreased after post-curing and water storage.

Restorations made from a material combination of FRC and PFC showed better mechanical properties than those obtained with plain PFC.

Citation

Garoushi SK, Lassila LVJ, Tezvergil A, Vallittu PK. Fiber-reinforced Composite Substructure: Loadbearing Capacity of an Onlay Restoration and Flexural Properties of the Material. J Contemp Dent Pract 2006 September;(7)4:001-008.


PDF Share
  1. Porcelain laminate veneers. A retrospective evaluation after 1 to 10 years of service: Part IIÅclinical results. Int J Prosthodont. 2000;13:9-18.
  2. A 15-year review of porcelain veneer failure Åa clinician's observations. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 1998;19:625-32.
  3. Retrospective clinical study and survival analysis on partial ceramic crowns: results up to 7 years. Clin Oral Investig. 2000;4:199-205.
  4. Thermoplastic composites for veneering teeth–a feasibility study. Dent Mater. 2002;18;479-85.
  5. Development and clinical applications of a light-polymerized fiber-reinforced composite. J Prosthet Dent. 1998;80:311-18.
  6. In vitro aging of dental composites in water effect of degree of conversion, filler volume, and filler/matrix coupling. J Biomed Mater Res. 1998;42:465-72.
  7. Effect of different whiskers on the reinforcement of dental resin composites. Dent Mater. 2003;19:359-67.
  8. Current status and rationale for composite inlays and onlays. Br Dent J. 1991;170:269-73.
  9. The clinical evaluation of heat-treated composite resin inlays. J Am Dent Assoc. 1990;120:177-81.
  10. Effect of heating delay on conversion and strength of a post-cured resin composite. J Dent Res. 1998;77:426-31.
  11. Creep and visco-elastic recovery of cured and secondary-cured composites and resin-modified glass ionomers. Dent Mater. 1999;15:138-43.
  12. A simple model of crack propagation in dental restorations. Dent Mater. 1992;8:131-6.
  13. AD, Bayne SC, Heymann HO. Long-term clinical performance of direct posterior composites. Trans Acad Dent Mater. 1996;9:151-69.
  14. Porcelain-fused-to-metal vs. nonmetal crowns. J Am Dent Assoc. 1991;130:409-11.
  15. Survival rates of resin-bonded, glass fiber-reinforced composite fixed partial dentures with a mean follow-up of 42 month: A pilot study. J Prosthet Dent. 2004;91:241-6.
  16. Prosthodontic treatment with a glass fiber-reinforced resin-bonded partial denture: A clinical report. J Prosthet Dent. 1999;82:132-5.
  17. Experience of using glass fibers with multiphase acrylic resin systems. In:Vallittu PK, editor. Theoretical background and clinical examples. The First Symposium on Fiber Reinforcement Plastic in Dentistry, Institute of Dentistry and Biomaterials Project, University of Turku, Finland (1999).
  18. Effect of fiber position and orientation on fracture load of fiber-reinforced composite. Dent Mater. 2004;20:947-55.
  19. The influence of short-term water storage on the flexural properties of unidirectional glass fiber- reinforced composite Biomaterials. 2002;23:2221-9.
  20. The effect of placement and quantity of glass fibers on the fracture resistance of interim fixed partial denture. Int J Prosthodont. 2000;13:72-8.
  21. Curing of silane coupling agent and its effect on the transverse strength of autopolymerizing polymethylmethacrylate-glass fiber composite. J Oral Rehabil. 1997;24:124-30.
  22. Flexural properties of acrylic resin polymers reinforced with unidirectional and woven glass fibers. J Prosthet Dent. 1999;81:318-26.
  23. Effect of three direct restorative materials on molar cuspal fracture resistance. Am J Dent. 2004;17:228-32.
  24. Dentistry-Polymer based crown and bridge materials. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland, 1992.
  25. Effect of 180-week water storage on the flexural properties of Eglass and silica fiber acrylic resin composite. Int J Prosthodont. 2000;13:334-9.
  26. Flexural properties of the bulk fiber-reinforced composite DC-Tell used in fixed partial Dentures. Int J Prosthodont. 2001;14:22-6.
  27. Composite resin fillings and inlays: An 11-year evaluation. Clin Oral Investig. 2003;7:71-9.
  28. Direct composite inlays versus conventional composite restorations: 5-year follow-up. J Dent. 2000;28:375-82.
  29. editor. The Third International Symposium on Fiber Reinforced Plastics in Dentistry, Institute of Dentistry and Biomaterials Project, University of Turku, Finland (2002).
  30. Inlay-fixed partial dentures adhesively and reinforced by glassfiber: clinical and scanning electron microscopy analysis after five years. Eur J Oral Sci. 2005;113:60-9.
  31. Mechanical properties of Bis-GMA resin short glass fiber composites. J Biomed Mater Res. 1998;23:1195-211.
  32. Mechanical property analysis of two admixed PRIMM- modified commercial dental composites. Trans Acad Dent Mater. 1996;9:238.
  33. The effect of fiber orientation on the thermal expansion coefficients of fiber-reinforced composites. Dent Mater. 2003;19:471-7.
  34. Effect of curing tip distance on light intensity and composite resin micro hardness. Quintessence Int. 1993;24:517-21.
  35. Effect of exposure time on the depth of polymerization of visible light-cured composite resin. J Oral Rehabil. 1998;15:167-72.
  36. Correlation between light intensity and exposure time on the hardness of composite resin. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2000;11:361-4
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.