EFFECT OF AGING ON THE FLEXURAL STRENGTH AND FRACTURE TOUGHNESS OF A FIBER REINFORCED COMPOSITE RESIN VERSUS TWO NANOHYBRID COMPOSITE RESINS | ||||
| Alexandria Dental Journal | ||||
| Article 17, Volume 41, Issue 3, December 2016, Page 328-335 PDF (1.68 MB) | ||||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||||
| DOI: 10.21608/adjalexu.2016.58048 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Authors | ||||
| Mohamed M. Abdul-Monem1; Ibrahim L. El-Gayar2; Fayza H. Al-Abbassy3 | ||||
| 1Instructor at the Dental Biomaterials Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt. | ||||
| 2- Professor of Operative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt. | ||||
| 3Professor of Dental Biomaterials, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt. | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| INTRODUCTION: It is known that posterior composite restorations have high failure rates and high frequency of replacement as shown by studies. This may be attributed to the inability of conventional fillers to withstand the forces of mastication in the posterior region. New methods of reinforcement such as glass fibers are being used to increase the mechanical properties of dental composites. OBJECTIVES: was to compare the effect of aging in distilled water at 37°C for 1 day, 3 months and 6 months on the flexural strength and fracture toughness of a fiber reinforced composite (EverX posterior, GC, Europe), a nano-hybrid ceramic filled composite (IPS Empress Direct, Ivoclar Vivadent, Lieschtenstein) and a nano-hybrid zirconia filled composite (Z250 XT, 3M ESPE, USA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: For each test, twenty-one specimens were fabricated from each of the three composites and were then subdivided into three subgroups of seven specimens each according to the aging period in distilled water. After each aging period, the specimens were fractured in a Universal testing machine and the results were analyzed using ANOVA and post hoc test (Fisher's LSD) at p < 0.05 significance level. Following each test, the fractured surfaces of the 6 months aged specimens were examined using SEM. RESULTS: The flexural strength and fracture toughness of the fiber-reinforced composite was the highest with a statistical significance in the three aging periods followed by the nano-hybrid zirconia filled composite and the least was the nano-hybrid ceramic filled composite.SEM imaging findings were consistent with the results. CONCLUSIONS: The fiber-reinforced composite had the highest flexural strength and fracture toughness after each of the three aging periods Although aging in water decreased the mechanical properties of the fiber-reinforced composite, it still remained higher than the two nanohybrid composites which ensures its ability to withstand forces of mastication in the posterior region. | ||||
| Keywords | ||||
| Fiber-reinforced; aging; flexural strength; Fracture Toughness; nano-hybrid | ||||
| References | ||||
|
1. Cramer NB, Stansbury JW, Bowman CN. Recent advances and developments in composite dental restorative materials. J Dent Res .2011; 90: 402-16. 2. Mota EG. Relationship between filler content and selected mechanical properties of six microhybrid composites. J Dent Sci .2011; 26: 151-5. 3. Masouras K, Silikas N, Watts DC. Correlation of filler content and elastic properties of resin-composites. Dent Mater J. 2008; 24: 932-9 4. Van Noort R. Introduction to dental materials. 3rd ed. London, UK: Elsevier, 2007:99-126 5. Colceriu A, Moldovan M, Prejmerean C, Buruiana T, Buruiana EC, Furtos G, et al. Nanocomposite used in dentistry. Eur Cells Mater J .2005; 10: 10-19. 6. Suzuki T, Kyoizumi H, Finger WJ, Kanehira M, Endo T, Utterodt A, et al. Resistance of nanofill and nanohybrid resin composites to toothbrush abrasion with calcium carbonate slurry. Dent Mater J .2009; 28: 708-16. 7. Garoushi S, Vallittu P, Lassila LV. Fracture toughness, compressive strength and load-bearing capacity of short glass fiber-reinforced composite resin. Chin J Dent Res .2011; 14: 15-9. 8. Garoushi S, Tanner J, Vallittu PK, Lassila L. Preliminary clinical evaluation of short fiber-reinforced composite resin in posterior teeth: 12-months report. Open Dent J. 2012; 6: 41-5. 9. Drummond JL. Degradation, fatigue, and failure of resin dental composite materials. J Dent Res .2008; 87: 710-19. 10. Hahnel S, Henrich A, Bürgers R, Handel G, Rosentritt M. Investigation of mechanical properties of modern dental composites after artificial aging for one year. Oper Dent J. 2010; 35: 412-9. 11. Calheiros FC, Pfeifer CS, Brandão LL, Agra CM, Ballester RY. Flexural properties of resin composites: Influence of specimen dimensions and storage conditions. Dent Mater J .2013; 32: 228-32. 12. Medina Tirado JI, Nagy WW, Dhuru VB, Ziebert AJ. The effect of thermocycling on the fracture toughness and hardness of core build up materials. J Prosth Dent. 2001; 86: 474-80. 13. Combe EC, Burke FJT, Douglas WH. Dental biomaterials. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1999. p 17. 14. International Organization for Standardization. ISO 4049/2000 – Dentistry – Polymer-based filling, restorative and luting materials. Switzerland: ISO; 2000. 15. Garapati SN, Priyadarshini, Raturi P, Shetty D, Srikanth KV. An in vitro evaluation of diametral tensile strength and flexural strength of nanocomposite vs hybrid and minifill composites cured with different light sources (QTH vs LED). J Contemp Dent Pract .2013; 14: 84-9. 16. American Dental Association Council on Dental Materials Instruments and Equipment: Status report on posterior composites. J Am Dent Assoc .1983;107:74-6. 17. Knobloch LA, Kerby RE, Seghi R, Berlin JS, Clelland N.Fracture toughness of packable and conventional composite materials. J Prosthet Dent .2002;88:307-13. 18. Fujishima A, Ferracane JL. Comparison of four modes of fracture toughness testing for dental composites. Dent Mater J .1996; 12: 38-43. 19. Bonilla ED, Mardirossian G, Caputo AA. Fracture toughness of posterior resin composites. Quintessence Int. 2001; 32: 206-10. 20. Reinhardt JW, Boyer DB, Stephens NH. Effects of secondary curing on indirect posterior composite resins. Oper Dent J .1994; 19: 217-20. 21. Ferracane JL. Hygroscopic and hydrolytic effects in polymer networks. Acad Dent Mater .2004; 18: 118-28. 22. Musanje L, Darvell BW. Effects of strain rate and temperature on the mechanical properties of resin composites. Dent Mater J .2004; 20: 750-65. 23. Abouelleil H, Pradelle N, Villat C, Attik N, Colon P, Grosgogeat B.Comparison of mechanical properties of a new fiber reinforced composite and bulk filling composites. Restor Dent Endod. 2015; 40:262-270. 24. Goracci C, Cadenaro M, Fontanive L, Giangrosso G, Juloski J, Vichi A. Ferrari M.Polymerization efficiency and flexural strength of low-stress restorative composites. Dent Mater J.2014; 30: 688-94. 25. Petersen RC. Discontinuous fiber-reinforced composites above critical length. J Dent Res .2005; 84:365-70. 26. Garoushi S, Säilynoja E, Vallittu PK, Lassila L.Physical properties and depth of cure of a new short fiber reinforced composite. Dent Mater J. 2013; 29:835-41. 27. Lassila LV, Nohrstrom T, Vallittu PK. The influence of short-term water storage on the flexural properties of unidirectional glass fiber-reinforced composites. J Biomat. 2002; 23:2221–29. 28. Gajewski VE, Pfeifer CS, Fróes-Salgado NR, Boaro LC, Braga RR. Monomers used in resin composites: degree of conversion, mechanical properties and water sorption/solubility. Braz Dent J .2012; 23:508-14. 29. Ho CT, Vijayaraghavan TV, Lee SY, Tsai A, Huang HM, Pan LC. Flexural behaviour of post-cured composites at oral-simulating temperatures. J Oral Rehabil 2001; 28:658–67. 30. Ferracane JL,Antonio RC, Matsumoto H.Variables affecting the fracture toughness of dental composites. J Dent Res.1987; 66:1140-5. 31. Ilie N, Hickel R, Valceanu AS, Huth KC. Fracture toughness of dental restorative materials. Clin Oral Investig .2012; 16: 489-98. | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 407 PDF Download: 399 |
||||
