Vistasp M Karbhari1, Howard Strassler. 1. Materials Science & Engineering Program, and Department of Structural Engineering, MC-0085, University of California San Diego, University Center, La Jolla, CA 92093-0085, USA. vkarbhari@ucsd.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare and elucidate the differences in damage mechanisms and response of fiber-reinforced dental resin composites based on three different brands under flexural loading. The types of reinforcement consisted of a unidirectional E-glass prepreg (Splint-It from Jeneric/Petron Inc.), an ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene fiber based biaxial braid (Connect, Kerr) and an ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene fiber based leno-weave (Ribbond). METHODS: Three different commercially available fiber reinforcing systems were used to fabricate rectangular bars, with the fiber reinforcement close to the tensile face, which were tested in flexure with an emphasis on studying damage mechanisms and response. Eight specimens (n=8) of each type were tested. Overall energy capacity as well as flexural strength and modulus were determined and results compared in light of the different abilities of the architectures used. RESULTS: Under flexural loading unreinforced and unidirectional prepreg reinforced dental composites failed in a brittle fashion, whereas the braid and leno-weave reinforced materials underwent significant deformation without rupture. The braid reinforced specimens showed the highest peak load. The addition of the unidirectional to the matrix resulted in an average strain of 0.06mm/mm which is 50% greater than the capacity of the unreinforced matrix, whereas the addition of the braid and leno-weave resulted in increases of 119 and 126%, respectively, emphasizing the higher capacity of both the UHM polyethylene fibers and the architectures to hold together without rupture under flexural loading. The addition of the fiber reinforcement substantially increases the level of strain energy in the specimens with the maximum being attained in the braid reinforced specimens with a 433% increase in energy absorption capability above the unreinforced case. The minimum scatter and highest consistency in response is seen in the leno-weave reinforced specimens due to the details of the architecture which restrict fabric shearing and movement during placement. SIGNIFICANCE: It is crucial that the appropriate selection of fiber architectures be made not just from a perspective of highest strength, but overall damage tolerance and energy absorption. Differences in weaves and architectures can result in substantially different performance and appropriate selection can mitigate premature and catastrophic failure. The study provides details of materials level response characteristics which are useful in selection of the fiber reinforcement based on specifics of application.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare and elucidate the differences in damage mechanisms and response of fiber-reinforced dental resin composites based on three different brands under flexural loading. The types of reinforcement consisted of a unidirectional E-glass prepreg (Splint-It from Jeneric/Petron Inc.), an ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene fiber based biaxial braid (Connect, Kerr) and an ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene fiber based leno-weave (Ribbond). METHODS: Three different commercially available fiber reinforcing systems were used to fabricate rectangular bars, with the fiber reinforcement close to the tensile face, which were tested in flexure with an emphasis on studying damage mechanisms and response. Eight specimens (n=8) of each type were tested. Overall energy capacity as well as flexural strength and modulus were determined and results compared in light of the different abilities of the architectures used. RESULTS: Under flexural loading unreinforced and unidirectional prepreg reinforced dental composites failed in a brittle fashion, whereas the braid and leno-weave reinforced materials underwent significant deformation without rupture. The braid reinforced specimens showed the highest peak load. The addition of the unidirectional to the matrix resulted in an average strain of 0.06mm/mm which is 50% greater than the capacity of the unreinforced matrix, whereas the addition of the braid and leno-weave resulted in increases of 119 and 126%, respectively, emphasizing the higher capacity of both the UHM polyethylene fibers and the architectures to hold together without rupture under flexural loading. The addition of the fiber reinforcement substantially increases the level of strain energy in the specimens with the maximum being attained in the braid reinforced specimens with a 433% increase in energy absorption capability above the unreinforced case. The minimum scatter and highest consistency in response is seen in the leno-weave reinforced specimens due to the details of the architecture which restrict fabric shearing and movement during placement. SIGNIFICANCE: It is crucial that the appropriate selection of fiber architectures be made not just from a perspective of highest strength, but overall damage tolerance and energy absorption. Differences in weaves and architectures can result in substantially different performance and appropriate selection can mitigate premature and catastrophic failure. The study provides details of materials level response characteristics which are useful in selection of the fiber reinforcement based on specifics of application.