Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2004 Mar;91(3):258-64.
doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2004.01.005.

The effect of fiber reinforcement on the fracture toughness and flexural strength of provisional restorative resins

Tamer A Hamza  1 , Stephen F Rosenstiel, Mohamed M Elhosary, Rabab M Ibraheem
Affiliations

The effect of fiber reinforcement on the fracture toughness and flexural strength of provisional restorative resins

Tamer A Hamza et al. J Prosthet Dent. 2004 Mar.

Abstract

Statement of problem: Fracture of provisional restorations is of concern, especially with long-span fixed partial dentures or areas of heavy occlusal stress. A number of different techniques for reinforcement of provisional restorations have been suggested; however, the effect of these techniques is largely unclear.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to determine the fracture toughness and flexural strength of different types of provisional restoration resins reinforced with different commercially available fibers.

Material and methods: A total of 105 specimens were prepared in this study for each test; compact tensile specimens for the fracture toughness test and rectangular specimens for the flexural strength test. The specimens were divided into 3 groups according to the type of resin used, Jet, Trim, or Temphase (n=35), and then each group was divided into 7 subgroups (n=5) according to the type of fiber reinforcement, Construct, Fibrestick, Ribbond normal, Ribbond THM, Ribbond triaxial, or Fibrenet. Unreinforced specimens served as the control. Specimens were loaded in a universal testing machine until fracture. The mean fracture toughness (MPa.m(1/2)) and mean flexural strength (MPa) were compared by 1-way analysis of variance, followed by the Tukey standardized range test (alpha=.05).

Results: Fibrestick and Construct reinforcements showed a significant increase (P<.0001) in mean fracture toughness over unreinforced controls for all resins tested. Fibrestick increased the polymethyl methacrylate from 1.25+/-0.06 MPa.m(1/2) to 2.74+/-0.12 MPa.m(1/2); polyethyl methacrylate from 0.67+/-0.07 MPa.m(1/2) to 1.64+/-0.13 MPa.m(1/2); and bis-acryl from 0.87+/-0.05 MPa.m(1/2) to 1.39+/-0.11 MPa.m(1/2). Construct increased polymethyl methacrylate to 2.59+/-0.28 MPa.m(1/2); polyethyl methacrylate to 1.53+/-0.22 MPa.m(1/2); and bis-acryl to 1.30+/-0.13 MPa.m(1/2); however, there was no significant difference between Fibrestick and Construct reinforcements in the degree of reinforcement. Similarly the mean flexural strength values were significantly increased by different combinations of fiber and resin (P<.0001).

Conclusion: The addition of fibers to provisional resin increased both fracture toughness and flexural strength.

PubMed Disclaimer

LinkOut - more resources