D C Jagger1, A Harrison, K D Jandt. 1. Department of Oral and Dental Science, Division of Restorative Dentistry (Prosthodontics), Bristol Dental School and Hospital, Lower Maudlin Street, Bristol BS1 2LY, United Kingdom. D.C.Jagger@bris.ac.uk
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to examine the interfacial region of poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) reinforced with untreated and surface-treated PMMA fibers in both chopped and continuous form using scanning electron and atomic force microscopy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Acrylic resin specimens incorporating untreated and surface-treated (with butadiene styrene latex emulsion) PMMA fibers were examined using a scanning electron microscope and an atomic force microscope. RESULTS: There was evidence of random arrangement of untreated and surface-treated chopped fibers throughout specimens with areas of dense fiber aggregation and other areas containing few or no fibers. For the untreated and surface-treated fibers in continuous forms (a single and 2 unidirectional layers), there was evidence of fiber displacement and buckling, together with variation in interfiber spacing. For the specimens containing surface-treated continuous fibers in a cross-ply arrangement that had demonstrated a substantial improvement in the modulus of rupture, there was no evidence of fiber buckling, and the layer of butadiene styrene was consistently thin and even in comparison to weaker specimens. CONCLUSION: The thickness of the rubber layer and the fiber arrangement (in terms of fiber displacement and interfiber spacing) may be important factors in the success of the reinforcement.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to examine the interfacial region of poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) reinforced with untreated and surface-treated PMMA fibers in both chopped and continuous form using scanning electron and atomic force microscopy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Acrylic resin specimens incorporating untreated and surface-treated (with butadiene styrene latex emulsion) PMMA fibers were examined using a scanning electron microscope and an atomic force microscope. RESULTS: There was evidence of random arrangement of untreated and surface-treated chopped fibers throughout specimens with areas of dense fiber aggregation and other areas containing few or no fibers. For the untreated and surface-treated fibers in continuous forms (a single and 2 unidirectional layers), there was evidence of fiber displacement and buckling, together with variation in interfiber spacing. For the specimens containing surface-treated continuous fibers in a cross-ply arrangement that had demonstrated a substantial improvement in the modulus of rupture, there was no evidence of fiber buckling, and the layer of butadiene styrene was consistently thin and even in comparison to weaker specimens. CONCLUSION: The thickness of the rubber layer and the fiber arrangement (in terms of fiber displacement and interfiber spacing) may be important factors in the success of the reinforcement.