Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Effect of cross-sectional design on the modulus of elasticity and toughness of fiber-reinforced composite materials

2005; Elsevier BV; Volume: 94; Issue: 3 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1016/j.prosdent.2005.06.008

1097-6841

Scott R. Dyer, Lippo Lassila, Mikko Jokinen, Pekka K. Vallittu,

Orthopaedic implants and arthroplasty

Statement of problem Many current fabrication protocols for dental fiber-reinforced composites use hand lay-up techniques and technician design input. Little information exists regarding how the manipulation of the cross-sectional design of a prosthesis might affect the modulus of elasticity and toughness. Purpose The aim of this study was to determine the effect of simple and complex cross-sectional designs on the modulus of elasticity and toughness of fiber-reinforced composite used for dental prostheses. Material and methods Two particulate composites (BelleGlass HP and Targis) were reinforced with ultra-high–molecular-weight polyethylene fiber ribbon (Connect), woven E-glass fibers (Vectris Frame), or unidirectional R-glass fibers (Vectris Pontic). A range of fiber positions, orientations, or geometries were incorporated into the rhombic specimens (2 × 2 × 25 mm3) to achieve simple and complex experimental cross-sectional designs. The control specimen did not contain fiber reinforcement. Specimens (n = 6) were stored 1 week in distilled water at 37°C prior to 3-point load testing to determine the modulus of elasticity (GPa) and toughness (MPa). The data within each main fiber group were subjected to 1-way analysis of variance and a Tukey post hoc test (α=.05). Cross-sections of randomly selected test specimens (n = 2) were made for scanning electron microscope (SEM) analysis of the fiber distribution. Results The mean modulus of elasticity varied from 8.7 ± 2.0 GPa (Targis control) to 21.6 ± 1.4 GPa (2 unidirectional glass fiber reinforcements, 1 each at the tension side and the compression side). Mean toughness varied from 0.07 ± 0.02 MPa (unidirectional glass fiber positioned at the compression side) as the lowest mean, to 4.53 ± 0.89 MPa (unidirectional glass fiber positioned at the tension side) as the highest. Significant differences were identified between specimen groups in each main category (all groups P<.001, except modulus of elasticity of the woven E-glass groups, where P=.003). SEM micrographs showed fiber distribution in the cross section of test specimens to correspond with the intended fiber geometry. Conclusion The modulus of elasticity of the composite specimens increased when 1 or more glass fiber groups were located at the compression side of the specimen. Toughness was most effectively increased when 1 or more fiber groups were located at the tension side of the specimen. Many current fabrication protocols for dental fiber-reinforced composites use hand lay-up techniques and technician design input. Little information exists regarding how the manipulation of the cross-sectional design of a prosthesis might affect the modulus of elasticity and toughness. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of simple and complex cross-sectional designs on the modulus of elasticity and toughness of fiber-reinforced composite used for dental prostheses. Two particulate composites (BelleGlass HP and Targis) were reinforced with ultra-high–molecular-weight polyethylene fiber ribbon (Connect), woven E-glass fibers (Vectris Frame), or unidirectional R-glass fibers (Vectris Pontic). A range of fiber positions, orientations, or geometries were incorporated into the rhombic specimens (2 × 2 × 25 mm3) to achieve simple and complex experimental cross-sectional designs. The control specimen did not contain fiber reinforcement. Specimens (n = 6) were stored 1 week in distilled water at 37°C prior to 3-point load testing to determine the modulus of elasticity (GPa) and toughness (MPa). The data within each main fiber group were subjected to 1-way analysis of variance and a Tukey post hoc test (α=.05). Cross-sections of randomly selected test specimens (n = 2) were made for scanning electron microscope (SEM) analysis of the fiber distribution. The mean modulus of elasticity varied from 8.7 ± 2.0 GPa (Targis control) to 21.6 ± 1.4 GPa (2 unidirectional glass fiber reinforcements, 1 each at the tension side and the compression side). Mean toughness varied from 0.07 ± 0.02 MPa (unidirectional glass fiber positioned at the compression side) as the lowest mean, to 4.53 ± 0.89 MPa (unidirectional glass fiber positioned at the tension side) as the highest. Significant differences were identified between specimen groups in each main category (all groups P<.001, except modulus of elasticity of the woven E-glass groups, where P=.003). SEM micrographs showed fiber distribution in the cross section of test specimens to correspond with the intended fiber geometry. The modulus of elasticity of the composite specimens increased when 1 or more glass fiber groups were located at the compression side of the specimen. Toughness was most effectively increased when 1 or more fiber groups were located at the tension side of the specimen.