Clinical Oral Investigations

, Volume 20, Issue 5, pp 959–966 | Cite as

Short fibre-reinforced composite for extensive direct restorations: a laboratory and computational assessment

  • Bruno Castro Ferreira Barreto
  • Annelies Van Ende
  • Diogo Pedrollo Lise
  • Pedro Yoshito Noritomi
  • Siegfried Jaecques
  • Jos Vander Sloten
  • Jan De Munck
  • Bart Van Meerbeek
Original Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Objectives

The objective of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a short fibre-reinforced composite (FRC) applied in combination with a conventional filler composite (CFC) on the fatigue resistance, fracture strength, failure mode and stress distribution, for restorations of premolars under two loading angles.

Material and methods

Thirty-two inferior premolars received extensive cavities with removal of the lingual cusp. Teeth were restored directly using ‘FRC (EverX Posterior, GC) + CFC (G-aenial, GC)’ or ‘CFC only’ and received two fatigue/fracture loadings at two different angles (0°/45°) (n = 8). Data were submitted to two-way ANOVA (α = 5 %) and Tukey test. Failure mode was analysed using SEM. Four 3D finite element (FE) models were constructed and static, linear and elastic analyses were performed. Maximum principal and von Mises stresses were evaluated.

Results

All specimens survived the mechanical fatigue simulation. No statistical difference in fracture resistance was recorded between FRC + CFC and CFC only, considering both loading angles (p = 0.115). However, the 0° loading showed a statistical significant higher strength than the 45° loading (p = 0.000). Failure mode analysis revealed more repairable fractures upon 0° loading, versus more root fractures (unrepairable) upon 45° loading. FE revealed a higher amount of stress upon 45° loading, with tensile stress being imposed to the lingual cervical area.

Conclusion

The fracture strength was not increased using the FRC. Loading at a 45° decreased significantly the fracture resistance.

Clinical relevance

The restoration of extensive cavities in posterior tooth is a challenge for the clinicians and the choice of the material that increases the fracture strength of tooth-restoration complex is required.

Keywords

Fatigue resistance Finite element analysis Fracture strength Loading angle Short fibre-reinforced composites 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The CAPES ‘Science without borders’ Program from the Brazilian Government awarded a Post-Doc scholarship to Bruno de Castro Ferreira Barreto. GC Europe is gratefully acknowledged for providing the materials needed for this research.

Compliance with ethical standards

ᅟ

Funding

This study was funded in part by the CAPES ‘Science without borders’ Program from the Brazilian Government, who awarded a Post-Doc scholarship to Bruno de Castro Ferreira Barreto.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors. The human premolars employed in the study were gathered with informed consent as approved by the Commission for Medical Ethics of KU Leuven under the file number S57622.

References

  1. 1.
    van Dijken JW, Sunnegardh-Gronberg K (2006) Fiber-reinforced packable resin composites in class II cavities. J Dent 34:763–769CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Garoushi S, Mangoush E, Vallittu M, Lassila L (2013) Short fiber reinforced composite: a new alternative for direct onlay restorations. Open Dent J 7:181–185CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Krejci I, Duc O, Dietschi D, de Campos E (2003) Marginal adaptation, retention and fracture resistance of adhesive composite restorations on devital teeth with and without posts. Oper Dent 28:127–135PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ferracane JL (2011) Resin composite—state of the art. Dent Mater 27:29–38CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fennis WM, Tezvergil A, Kuijs RH, Lassila LV, Kreulen CM, Creugers NH, Vallittu PK (2005) In vitro fracture resistance of fiber reinforced cusp-replacing composite restorations. Dent Mater 21:565–572CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Garoushi S, Sailynoja E, Vallittu PK, Lassila LV (2013) Physical properties and depth of cure of a new short fiber reinforced composite. Dent Mater 29:835–841CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lutz F, Phillips RW (1983) A classification and evaluation of composite resin systems. J Prosthet Dent 50:480–488CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bayne SC, Thompson JY (1996) Mechanical property analysis of two admixed PRIMM-modified commercial dental composites. Trans Acad Dent Mater 9:238Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bicalho AA, Valdivia AD, Barreto BC, Tantbirojn D, Versluis A, Soares CJ (2014) Incremental filling technique and composite material-part II: shrinkage and shrinkage stresses. Oper Dent 39:E83–E92CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Versluis A, Tantbirojn D, Pintado MR, DeLong R, Douglas WH (2004) Residual shrinkage stress distributions in molars after composite restoration. Dent Mater 20:554–564CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Frater M, Forster A, Kereszturi M, Braunitzer G, Nagy K (2014) In vitro fracture resistance of molar teeth restored with a short fibre-reinforced composite material. J Dent 42:1143–1150CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Garoushi S, Vallittu PK, Lassila LV (2007) Short glass fiber reinforced restorative composite resin with semi-inter penetrating polymer network matrix. Dent Mater 23:1356–1362CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Garoushi S, Vallittu PK, Lassila LV (2007) Direct restoration of severely damaged incisors using short fiber-reinforced composite resin. J Dent 35:731–736CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Garoushi S, Vallittu PK, Watts DC, Lassila LV (2008) Polymerization shrinkage of experimental short glass fiber-reinforced composite with semi-inter penetrating polymer network matrix. Dent Mater 24:211–215CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Vallittu PK (2014) High-aspect ratio fillers: fiber-reinforced composites and their anisotropic properties. Dent Mater 31:1–7CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Soares PV, de Almeida MG, Pereira FA, Reis BR, Soares CJ, de Sousa MM, de Freitas Santos-Filho PC (2013) Rapid prototyping and 3D-virtual models for operative dentistry education in Brazil. J Dent Educ 77:358–363PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wright KW, Yettram AL (1979) Reactive force distributions for teeth when loaded singly and when used as fixed partial denture abutments. J Prosthet Dent 42:411–416CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rees JS, Jacobsen PH, Hickman J (1994) The elastic modulus of dentine determined by static and dynamic methods. Clin Mater 17:11–15CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Farah JW, Clark AE, Ainpour PR (1981) Elastomeric impression materials. Oper Dent 6:15–19PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stafford CM, Harrison C, Beers KL, Karim A, Amis EJ, VanLandingham MR, Kim HC, Volksen W, Miller RD, Simonyi EE (2004) A buckling-based metrology for measuring the elastic moduli of polymeric thin films. Nat Mater 3:545–550CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lastumaki TM, Lassila LV, Vallittu PK (2003) The semi-interpenetrating polymer network matrix of fiber-reinforced composite and its effect on the surface adhesive properties. J Mater Sci Mater Med 14:803–809CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Garoushi S, Vallittu PK, Watts DC, Lassila LV (2008) Effect of nanofiller fractions and temperature on polymerization shrinkage on glass fiber reinforced filling material. Dent Mater 24:606–610CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Garoushi S, Kaleem M, Shinya A, Vallittu PK, Satterthwaite JD, Watts DC, Lassila LV (2012) Creep of experimental short fiber-reinforced composite resin. Dent Mater J 31:737–741CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Garoushi S, Tanner J, Vallittu P, Lassila L (2012) Preliminary clinical evaluation of short fiber-reinforced composite resin in posterior teeth: 12-months report. Open Dent J 6:41–45CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Taha NA, Palamara JE, Messer HH (2014) Fracture strength and fracture patterns of root-filled teeth restored with direct resin composite restorations under static and fatigue loading. Oper Dent 39:181–188CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Torbjorner A, Fransson B (2004) A literature review on the prosthetic treatment of structurally compromised teeth. Int J Prosthodont 17:369–376PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    ElAyouti A, Serry MI, Geis-Gerstorfer J, Lost C (2011) Influence of cusp coverage on the fracture resistance of premolars with endodontic access cavities. Int Endod J 44:543–549CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Stappert CF, Att W, Gerds T, Strub JR (2006) Fracture resistance of different partial-coverage ceramic molar restorations: an in vitro investigation. J Am Dent Assoc 137:514–522CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sengun A, Cobankara FK, Orucoglu H (2008) Effect of a new restoration technique on fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth. Dent Traumatol 24:214–219CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Soares PV, Santos-Filho PC, Martins LR, Soares CJ (2008) Influence of restorative technique on the biomechanical behavior of endodontically treated maxillary premolars. Part I: fracture resistance and fracture mode. J Prosthet Dent 99:30–37CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Christian GW, Button GL, Moon PC, England MC, Douglas HB (1981) Post core restoration in endodontically treated posterior teeth. J Endod 7:182–185CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Plasmans PJ, Visseren LG, Vrijhoef MM, Kayser AF (1986) In vitro comparison of dowel and core techniques for endodontically treated molars. J Endod 12:382–387CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bruno Castro Ferreira Barreto
    • 1
    • 2
  • Annelies Van Ende
    • 1
  • Diogo Pedrollo Lise
    • 1
  • Pedro Yoshito Noritomi
    • 3
  • Siegfried Jaecques
    • 2
  • Jos Vander Sloten
    • 2
  • Jan De Munck
    • 1
  • Bart Van Meerbeek
    • 1
  1. 1.BIOMAT, Department of Oral Health SciencesKU Leuven (University of Leuven) & Dentistry, University Hospitals LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  2. 2.BMGO, Biomechanics Section (BMe), Department of Mechanical EngineeringKU Leuven (University of Leuven)LeuvenBelgium
  3. 3.Division of Tridimensional TechnologiesCenter for Information Technology Renato Archer (DT3D/CTI)CampinasBrazil

Personalised recommendations