The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  25 (2024)
Volume  24 (2023)
Volume  23 (2022)
Volume  22 (2021)
Volume  21 (2020)
Volume  20 (2019)
Volume  19 (2018)
Volume  18 (2017)
Volume  17 (2016)
Volume  16 (2015)
Volume  15 (2014)
Volume  14 (2013)
Volume  13 (2012)
Volume  12 (2011)
Volume  11 (2010)
Volume  10 (2009)
Volume  9 (2008)
Volume  8 (2007)
Volume  7 (2006)
Volume  6 (2005)
Volume  5 (2004)
Volume  4 (2003)
Volume  3 (2002)
Volume  2 (2001)
Volume  1 (1999)
Related articles

VOLUME 9 , ISSUE 2 ( February, 2008 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

In vitro Mechanical Testing of Glass Fiber-reinforced Composite Used as Dental Implants

Lippo Lassila, Pekka Vallittu, Ahmed Ballo, Timo Nărhi

Citation Information : Lassila L, Vallittu P, Ballo A, Nărhi T. In vitro Mechanical Testing of Glass Fiber-reinforced Composite Used as Dental Implants. J Contemp Dent Pract 2008; 9 (2):41-48.

DOI: 10.5005/jcdp-9-2-41

License: CC BY-NC 3.0

Published Online: 01-05-2009

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2008; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim

The aim of this study was to evaluate the design of fiber-reinforced composite (FRC) on some mechanical properties of a dental implant.

Methods and Materials

FRC implants were fabricated using different polymerization conditions and designs of the glass-fiber structure. Specimens were tested with a cantilever bending test and a torsional test. The degree of monomer conversion (DC%) was measured using a Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR).

Results

Statistical analysis showed significant differences between groups revealing mean fracture load values from 437 N to 1461 N. The mean torsional force in fracture varied from 0.01 to 1.66 Nm. The DC% varied from 50% to 90%.

Conclusion

This study suggests by modifying the polymerization conditions and fiber orientation of FRC implants, the biomechanical properties of an FRC can be tailored to the needs of dental implants.

Citation

Ballo AM, Lassila LV, Närhi TO, Vallittu PK. In vitro Mechanical Testing of Glass Fiber-reinforced Composite Used as Dental Implants. J Contemp Dent Pract 2008 February;(9)2:041-048.

PDF Share
  1. Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw: experience from a ten year period. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Suppl. 1977; 16:130-6.
  2. Failures and complications in 127 consecutively placed fixed partial prostheses supported by Branemark implants. Int J Oral Maxillofacial Implants. 1992; 7:40-4.
  3. Biological response to dental implant loading/overloading. Implant overloading: Empiricism or science. Stomatologija. 2003; 5:83-9.
  4. Bending overload and implant fracture. Int J Oralmaxillofac Implants. 1995; 10:326-34.
  5. Mechanical properties and failure behavior of cylindrical CFRP-implant-rods under torsion. Composites. 1998; 29:1453-61.
  6. In vivo horizontal bending moments on implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1998; 13:232-44.
  7. Coupling electrical and mechanical outputs of human jaw muscles undertaking multidirectional bite-force tasks. Arch Oral Biol. 1996; 41:1141-7.
  8. Force and moment distributions among osseointegrated dental implant. J Biomechanics. 1995; 28:1103-9.
  9. The biomechanics of force distribution in implant-supported prostheses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1993; 8:19-31.
  10. Bioresorbable fracture fixation in orthopedics: a comprehensive review. Part I. Basic science and preclinical studies. Am J Orthop. 1997; 26:665-71.
  11. Occlusal forces and chewing ability in dentitions with cross-arch bridges. Swed Dent J Suppl. 1985; 26:160-7.
  12. The effect of pressure on maximum incisal bite force in man. Arch Oral Biol. 1997;42:11–7.
  13. Three-dimensional analyses of human bite-force magnitude and moment. Arch Oral Biol. 1991; 36:535-9.
  14. The acrylic denture: mechanical evaluation of midline fracture. Br Dent J. 1961; 110:257-67.
  15. The design and fabrication of fiber-reinforced implant prostheses. J Prosthet Dent. 2002; 88:449-54.
  16. Glass fiber-reinforced abutments for dental implants. A pilot study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2001; 12:174-8.
  17. Fiber-reinforced composite framework for implant-supported overdentures. J Prosthet Dent. 2000; 84:200-4.
  18. Effect of water storage of E-glass fiber-reinforced composite on adhesion of Streptococcus mutans. Biomaterials. 2001; 22:1613-8.
  19. Early plaque formation on fiber-reinforced composites in vivo. Clin Oral Investig. 2005; 9:154-60.
  20. Some aspects of the tensile strength of unidirectional glass fiber-polymethylmethacrylate composite used in dentures. J Oral Rehabil. 1998; 25:100-5.
  21. Flexural strength of a provisional resin material with fiber addition. J Oral Rehabil. 1998; 25:214-7.
  22. Strength and mode of failure of unidirectional and bidirectional glass fiberreinforced composite materials. Int J Prosthodont. 2003; 16:161-6.
  23. The use of continuous fiber reinforcement in dentistry. Dent Mater. 1992; 8:197-202.
  24. The effect of void space and polymerization time on transverse strength of acrylic-glass fiber composite. J Oral Rehabil. 1995; 22:257-61.
  25. Effect of heating delay on conversion and strength of a post-cured resin composite. J Dent Res. 1998; 77:426-31.
  26. Effect of 180-week water storage on the flexural properties of E-glass and silica fiber acrylic resin composite. Int J Prosthodont. 2000; 13:334-9.
  27. The influence of short-term water storage on the flexural properties of unidirectional glass fiber reinforced composites. Biomaterials. 2002; 23:2221-9.
  28. Initial adhesion of glass fiber-reinforced composite to the surface of porcine calvarial bone. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2005; 75:334-42.
  29. In vitro biocompatibility evaluation of fiber-reinforced composite implant device. J Mater Sci-Mater Med. (Submitted).
  30. Improvement in zirconia osseointegration by means of a biological glass coating: An in vitro and in vivo investigation. J Biomed Mater Res. 2002; 61:282-9.
  31. Implants coated with bioactive glass by CO2-laser, an in vivo study. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2004; 15:795-802.
  32. Effect of short-term water storage on the elastic properties of some dental restorative materials-A resonant ultrasound spectroscopy study. Dent Mater. 2007; 23(7):878-84.
  33. Load transfer from endosteal implants to supporting bone: an analysis using statics. Part two: Axial loading. J Oral Implantol. 1992; 18:349-53.
  34. Dental materials and their selection. Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc. 2002:340-80.
  35. Hydrothermal and mechanical stresses degrade fiber-matrix interfacial bond strength in dental fiber-reinforced composites. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2006; 76:98-105.
  36. A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Int J Oral Surg. 1981; 10:387-416.
  37. Titanium: the mystery metal of implant dentistry. Dental materials aspects. J Prosthet Dent. 1985; 54:410-4.
  38. The intra-osseous Al2O3 (Frialit) Tuebingen Implant. Developmental status after eight years (I-III). Quintessence International 1984; 15:1-39.
  39. Yttria-stabilized zirconia for improved hip joint head. In: Andersson ÖH, Yli-Urpo A, editors. Bioceramics 7. London: Butterworth-Heinemann Publ. 1994:387-94.
  40. Y-TZP ceramics for artificial joint replacements. Biomaterials. 1998;19:1489–94.
  41. Zirconia for medical implants-the role of strength properties. In: Andersson OH, Yli-Urpo A, editors. Bioceramics 7. London: Butterworth-Heinemann Publ., 1994:401-6.
  42. Interface analysis of titanium and zirconium bone implants. Biomaterials. 1985;6:97–101.
  43. Tissue compatibility and stability of a new zirconia ceramic in vivo. J Prosthet Dent. 1992;68:322–26.
  44. Zirconia-implant-supported all-ceramic crowns withstand long-term load: a pilot investigation. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006; 17:565-71.
  45. Bone remodeling around implanted ceramics. J Biomed Mater Res. 1996; 30:117-24.
  46. Retrospective analysis of hydroxyapatite development for oral implant applications. Dent Clin North Am. 1992; 36:19-26.
  47. Hydroxyapatite coated dental implants. Biological criteria and prosthetic possibilities. Cah Prothese. 1990; 71:56-75.
  48. Adhesive improvement of the mechanical properties of a dense HA-cemented Ti dental implant. J Biomed Mater Res. 1996; 30:109-16.
  49. The influence of short-term water storage on the flexural properties of unidirectional glass fiber-reinforced composites. Biomaterials. 2002; 23:2221-9.
  50. Survival of glass fibre reinforced composite post restorations after 2 years-an observational clinical study. J Dent 2005; 33:305-12.
  51. Survival time of cast post and cores: a 10-year retrospective study. J Dent 2007; 35:50-8.
  52. Fatigue resistance and structural characteristics of fiber posts: three-point bending test and SEM evaluation. Dent Mater. 2005; 2:75-82.
  53. Flexural properties of fiber reinforced root canal posts. Dent Mater. 2004; 20:29-36.
  54. Bone cement or bone substitute augmentation of pedicle screws improves pullout strength in posterior spinal fixation. J Mater Sci-Mater Med. 2002; 13: 1143-5.
  55. Clinical results of an open prospective study of a bis-GMA composite in percutaneous vertebral augmentation. Eur spine J. 2005; 14:982-91.
  56. Use of a synthetic bone void filler to augment screws in osteopenic ankle fracture fixation. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2004; 124:161-5.
  57. Mechanical properties of resin cements with different activation modes. J Oral Rehabil. 2002; 29:257-62.
  58. Effect of light intensity and exposure duration on cure of resin composite. Oper Dent. 1994;19:26–32.
  59. Mechanical properties of heat treated composite resin inlay/onlay technique. Scand J Dent Res. 1990; 98:564-7.
  60. Time temperature profiles of post-cure composite oven. Gen Dent. 1998; 46:79-83.
  61. Load bearing capacity of bone anchored fiber-reinforced composite device. J Mater Sci-Mater Med. (Accepted for publication).
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.