In-vitro comparison of fracture strength between two Fiber-reinforced composite

The successful use of Fiber-reinforced composites (FRC)in dentistry has been appreciated for many years. Pre-impregnation technology significantly increased the interest and usage of FRC for laboratory and chairside. Different products are now widely accepted. It is important to understand the different capabilities of each product and the necessity of following the manufacturer's instructions. Objective: The aim of this study was to determine the fracture strength and flexural properties of two types of pre-impregnated fiber-reinforced composites embedded with two different types of composite. Methods: Four groups of the FRC, ten in each group were made and tested. The samples were classified as: (1) EM: EverStic (StickTech Ltd/Finland) embedded with 3M composite (3M-ESPE/Germany); (2) ES: EverStic embedded with SculptureŽ composite (Jeneric/Pentron Inc, Wallingford, CT ); (3) FS: FibreKorŽ embedded with SculptureŽ composite; and (4) FM: FibreKorŽ embedded with 3M composite. All samples were fabricated in the same size (2x2x14mm), shaped within one single template, embedded into light curing composite resin, and light cured. Samples were stored in a sealed moisture bag for 72 hours at room temperature. The specimen was then tested by a short beam three-point loading test, loaded until failure on an Instron 1123 (Cauton, MA). Impregnation of fibres with composite was examined with a scanning electronic microscope (SEM). The means were calculated and statistically evaluated utilizing ANOVA. Results: There was no statistical difference in fracture strength between ES (6.57ą0.9 Kg) and EM (6.31ą1.3 Kg) (p³0.05). FS (4.9ą0.7 Kg)is significantly stronger than the FM (2.6ą0.6 Kg) (p£0.05). Both ES and EM were significantly stronger than FS group (p£0.05). Conclusions: EverStic resists a higher load until initial failure than FibreKorŽ. It can be embedded with SculptureŽ or 3M composite. The study confirmed the FibreKorŽ is stronger when embedded with SculptureŽ composite following the manufacture's instruction than use of 3M composite.

*0581 In-vitro comparison of fracture strength between two Fiber-reinforced composite*
L. XU, J.A. BRUCKNER, J. KILIMINZOGLOU, A. SHIU, M. TRUHLAR, E. SCHLISSEL, and M. WOLFF, State University of New York - Stony Brook, USA The successful use of Fiber-reinforced composites (FRC)in dentistry has been appreciated for many years. Pre-impregnation technology significantly increased the interest and usage of FRC for laboratory and chairside. Different products are now widely accepted. It is important to understand the different capabilities of each product and the necessity of following the manufacturer's instructions. Objective: The aim of this study was to determine the fracture strength and flexural properties of two types of pre-impregnated fiber-reinforced composites embedded with two different types of composite. Methods: Four groups of the FRC, ten in each group were made and tested. The samples were classified as: (1) EM: EverStic (StickTech Ltd/Finland) embedded with 3M composite (3M-ESPE/Germany); (2) ES: EverStic embedded with SculptureŽ composite (Jeneric/Pentron Inc, Wallingford, CT ); (3) FS: FibreKorŽ embedded with SculptureŽ composite; and (4) FM: FibreKorŽ embedded with 3M composite. All samples were fabricated in the same size (2x2x14mm), shaped within one single template, embedded into light curing composite resin, and light cured. Samples were stored in a sealed moisture bag for 72 hours at room temperature. The specimen was then tested by a short beam three-point loading test, loaded until failure on an Instron 1123 (Cauton, MA). Impregnation of fibres with composite was examined with a scanning electronic microscope (SEM). The means were calculated and statistically evaluated utilizing ANOVA. Results: There was no statistical difference in fracture strength between ES (6.57ą0.9 Kg) and EM (6.31ą1.3 Kg) (p³0.05). FS (4.9ą0.7 Kg)is significantly stronger than the FM (2.6ą0.6 Kg) (p£0.05). Both ES and EM were significantly stronger than FS group (p£0.05). Conclusions: EverStic resists a higher load until initial failure than FibreKorŽ. It can be embedded with SculptureŽ or 3M composite. The study confirmed the FibreKorŽ is stronger when embedded with SculptureŽ composite following the manufacture's instruction than use of 3M composite.
Seq #78 - Composition, Physical Properties, and Fatigue 10:15 AM-11:30 AM, Thursday, 11 March 2004 Hawaii Convention Center Exhibit Hall 1-2
Back to the Dental Materials: VI - Polymer Materials-Mechanical Properties and Degradation Program Back to the IADR/AADR/CADR 82nd General Session (March 10-13, 2004)
Top Level Search