STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: A fiber-reinforced composite resin system has been introduced for posterior restorations; however, little information is known regarding possible degradation of its flexure strength with respect to aging and cyclic loading. PURPOSE: The aim of this in vitro study was to determine whether the fiber reinforcement improved the flexure strength of an indirect composite resin aged in air and water for 3 months and then subjected to static and cyclic loading. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The materials tested in this study, non-fiber-reinforced composite resin (n=160) (Tescera Dentin) and fiber-reinforced composite resin (n=160) (Tescera U-beam and Rod), were fabricated as bars, 25.0 x 4.5 x 4.5 mm, and polished with 120- to 320-grit silicon carbide grinding paper. The static (n=15) and cyclical (n=25) flexure strengths (MPa) of specimens were tested initially and after 3 months' aging in air and water. The specimens were tested in 3-point loading in their respective aging media at a loading rate of 2 mm/min. Cyclic testing followed the staircase approach of either 1000 cycles or until specimen fracture. Statistical analysis for the static-loaded specimens consisted of a 3-way analysis of variance (media, aging, and fiber-reinforced versus unreinforced) (alpha=.05), whereas the cyclic-loaded specimens used confidence levels of .95 for the respective variables (media, aging, and fiber-reinforced versus unreinforced) and to compare static versus cyclic loading. RESULTS: The statistical analysis of the static specimens showed no significant difference between control (unaged) groups and aged groups and aging media, but a significant difference (P<.001) between reinforced versus unreinforced specimens. For the cyclic-loaded specimens, the confidence levels at .95 showed no difference between control (unaged) groups and aged groups and aging media (air or water), but a difference between reinforced versus unreinforced specimens, and static-loaded versus cyclic-loaded specimens. During testing, the specimens separated into several pieces when the fiber reinforcement was on the compressive side, whereas the specimen remained intact when the fiber reinforcement was on the tensile side. CONCLUSIONS: When compared to indirect composite resin without fiber reinforcement, the addition of fibers is an effective method to improve the flexure strength of indirect composite resin for the materials tested.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: A fiber-reinforced composite resin system has been introduced for posterior restorations; however, little information is known regarding possible degradation of its flexure strength with respect to aging and cyclic loading. PURPOSE: The aim of this in vitro study was to determine whether the fiber reinforcement improved the flexure strength of an indirect composite resin aged in air and water for 3 months and then subjected to static and cyclic loading. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The materials tested in this study, non-fiber-reinforced composite resin (n=160) (Tescera Dentin) and fiber-reinforced composite resin (n=160) (Tescera U-beam and Rod), were fabricated as bars, 25.0 x 4.5 x 4.5 mm, and polished with 120- to 320-grit silicon carbide grinding paper. The static (n=15) and cyclical (n=25) flexure strengths (MPa) of specimens were tested initially and after 3 months' aging in air and water. The specimens were tested in 3-point loading in their respective aging media at a loading rate of 2 mm/min. Cyclic testing followed the staircase approach of either 1000 cycles or until specimen fracture. Statistical analysis for the static-loaded specimens consisted of a 3-way analysis of variance (media, aging, and fiber-reinforced versus unreinforced) (alpha=.05), whereas the cyclic-loaded specimens used confidence levels of .95 for the respective variables (media, aging, and fiber-reinforced versus unreinforced) and to compare static versus cyclic loading. RESULTS: The statistical analysis of the static specimens showed no significant difference between control (unaged) groups and aged groups and aging media, but a significant difference (P<.001) between reinforced versus unreinforced specimens. For the cyclic-loaded specimens, the confidence levels at .95 showed no difference between control (unaged) groups and aged groups and aging media (air or water), but a difference between reinforced versus unreinforced specimens, and static-loaded versus cyclic-loaded specimens. During testing, the specimens separated into several pieces when the fiber reinforcement was on the compressive side, whereas the specimen remained intact when the fiber reinforcement was on the tensile side. CONCLUSIONS: When compared to indirect composite resin without fiber reinforcement, the addition of fibers is an effective method to improve the flexure strength of indirect composite resin for the materials tested.