Kyo-Han Kim1, Joo L Ong, Osamu Okuno. 1. Department of Dental Biomaterials, College of Dentistry and Institute of Biomaterials Research and Development, Kyungpook National University, Taegu, Korea. kyohan@knu.ac.kr
Abstract
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Little information exists regarding the filler morphology and loading of composites with respect to their effects on selected mechanical properties and fracture toughness. PURPOSE: The objectives of this study were to: (1) classify commercial composites according to filler morphology, (2) evaluate the influence of filler morphology on filler loading, and (3) evaluate the effect of filler morphology and loading on the hardness, flexural strength, flexural modulus, and fracture toughness of contemporary composites. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Field emission scanning electron microscopy/energy dispersive spectroscopy was used to classify 3 specimens from each of 14 commercial composites into 4 groups according to filler morphology. The specimens (each 5 x 2.5 x 15 mm) were derived from the fractured remnants after the fracture toughness test. Filler weight content was determined by the standard ash method, and the volume content was calculated using the weight percentage and density of the filler and matrix components. Microhardness was measured with a Vickers hardness tester, and flexural strength and modulus were measured with a universal testing machine. A 3-point bending test (ASTM E-399) was used to determine the fracture toughness of each composite. Data were compared with analysis of variance followed by Duncan's multiple range test, both at the P<.05 level of significance. RESULTS: The composites were classified into 4 categories according to filler morphology: prepolymerized, irregular-shaped, both prepolymerized and irregular-shaped, and round particles. Filler loading was influenced by filler morphology. Composites containing prepolymerized filler particles had the lowest filler content (25% to 51% of filler volume), whereas composites containing round particles had the highest filler content (59% to 60% of filler volume). The mechanical properties of the composites were related to their filler content. Composites with the highest filler by volume exhibited the highest flexural strength (120 to 129 MPa), flexural modulus (12 to 15 GPa), and hardness (101 to 117 VHN). Fracture toughness was also affected by filler volume, but maximum toughness was found at a threshold level of approximately 55% filler volume. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, the commercial composites tested could be classified by their filler morphology. This property influenced filler loading. Both filler morphology and filler loading influenced flexural strength, flexural modulus, hardness, and fracture toughness.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Little information exists regarding the filler morphology and loading of composites with respect to their effects on selected mechanical properties and fracture toughness. PURPOSE: The objectives of this study were to: (1) classify commercial composites according to filler morphology, (2) evaluate the influence of filler morphology on filler loading, and (3) evaluate the effect of filler morphology and loading on the hardness, flexural strength, flexural modulus, and fracture toughness of contemporary composites. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Field emission scanning electron microscopy/energy dispersive spectroscopy was used to classify 3 specimens from each of 14 commercial composites into 4 groups according to filler morphology. The specimens (each 5 x 2.5 x 15 mm) were derived from the fractured remnants after the fracture toughness test. Filler weight content was determined by the standard ash method, and the volume content was calculated using the weight percentage and density of the filler and matrix components. Microhardness was measured with a Vickers hardness tester, and flexural strength and modulus were measured with a universal testing machine. A 3-point bending test (ASTM E-399) was used to determine the fracture toughness of each composite. Data were compared with analysis of variance followed by Duncan's multiple range test, both at the P<.05 level of significance. RESULTS: The composites were classified into 4 categories according to filler morphology: prepolymerized, irregular-shaped, both prepolymerized and irregular-shaped, and round particles. Filler loading was influenced by filler morphology. Composites containing prepolymerized filler particles had the lowest filler content (25% to 51% of filler volume), whereas composites containing round particles had the highest filler content (59% to 60% of filler volume). The mechanical properties of the composites were related to their filler content. Composites with the highest filler by volume exhibited the highest flexural strength (120 to 129 MPa), flexural modulus (12 to 15 GPa), and hardness (101 to 117 VHN). Fracture toughness was also affected by filler volume, but maximum toughness was found at a threshold level of approximately 55% filler volume. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, the commercial composites tested could be classified by their filler morphology. This property influenced filler loading. Both filler morphology and filler loading influenced flexural strength, flexural modulus, hardness, and fracture toughness.