, Volume 102, Issue 2, pp 176–183 | Cite as

Comprehensive properties of a novel fiber reinforced composite with a UEDMA-based resin matrix

  • Meng Zhang
  • Jukka Pekka Matinlinna
  • Michael George Botelho
  • Eija Sinikka Säilynoja
Original Article


The traditional fiber reinforced composite (FRC) contains bisphenol A glycidyl methacrylate (bis-GMA) in the resin matrix, which is thought to have some disadvantages. This research aimed at replacing bis-GMA with another monomer—urethane dimethacrylate (UEDMA), with the desired properties for dental use still retained. Four groups were prepared with light-curing (n = 30), one Control group with a bis-GMA-based resin matrix and three experimental groups with UEDMA-based matrices (Exper 1, Exper 2 and Exper 3 with a varying UEDMA weight percentage). Specimens were stored in dry conditions for 24 h or in deionized water for 1, 3, 6 or 12 months prior to the tests. Water sorption (n = 6), Vicker’s hardness (n = 6) and flexural properties (n = 6) after each storage time were investigated. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images were taken at the fracture sites after 3-point bending. All the results were statistically analyzed (α = 0.05). The Exper 1 group exhibited the lowest weight increase after water storage among the experimental groups. As for dry conditions, 1- and 6-month storage, different resin matrix compositions made no significant difference to hardness, while for 3- and 12-month storage, “Control” possessed the highest hardness. The Control group’s strength and modulus, Exper 1 and Exper 2’s modulus were stable during water storage. Compared to other experimental groups, Exper 1 had the highest strength and modulus values with most of the storage times. SEM images showed relatively good adhesion between the fiber and the matrix. With all the tested properties considered, the Exper 1 group had superior performance among all the three experimental groups.


Fiber reinforced composite Urethane dimethacrylate Water sorption Vicker’s hardness Flexural properties 



Esstech Inc. (Essington, PA, USA) is acknowledged for generously donating UEDMA and HEMA monomers for this study. Stick Tech Ltd. (Turku, Finland) is gratefully thanked for offering the E-glass fiber materials.


  1. 1.
    Zhang M, Matinlinna JP. E-Glass fiber reinforced composites in dental applications. Silicon. 2012;4:73–8.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vallittu PK. Survival rates of resin-bonded, glass fiber–reinforced composite fixed partial dentures with a mean follow-up of 42 months: a pilot study. J Pros Dent. 2004;9:241–6.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Le Bell-Rönnlöf AM, Lassila LV, Kangasniemi I, Vallittu PK. Load-bearing capacity of human incisor restored with various fiber-reinforced composite posts. Dent Mater. 2011;27:107–15.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Olsen CM, Meussen-Elholm ET, Samuelsen M, Holme JA, Hongslo JK. Effects of the environmental oestrogens bisphenol A, tetrachlorobisphenol A, tetrabromobisphenol A, 4-hydroxybiphenyl and 4,4′-dihydroxybiphenyl on oestrogen receptor binding, cell proliferation and regulation of oestrogen sensitive proteins in the human breast cancer cell line MCF-7. Pharmacol Toxicol. 2003;92:180–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gwynne L, Bisphenol A A Known Endocrine Disruptor (A WWF European Toxics Programme Report). http://www.wwf.org.uk/filelibrary/pdf/bpa.pdf. (2000). Accessed 30 May 2012.
  6. 6.
    Rathee M, Malik P, Singh J. Bisphenol A in dental sealants and its estrogen like effect. Indian J Endocr Metab. 2012;16:339–42.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Moszner N, Fischer UK, Angermann J, Rheinberger V. A partially aromatic urethane dimethacrylate as a new substitute for Bis-GMA in restorative composites. Dent Mater. 2008;24:694–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nosbi Norlin, Akil Hazizan Md, Mohd Ishak ZA, Abu Bakar A. Degradation of compressive properties of pultruded kenaf fiber reinforced composites after immersion in various solutions. Mater Des. 2010;30:4960–4.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Darvell BW. Materials Science for Dentistry. 8th ed. The University of Hong Kong; 2006.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Blake A. Handbook of mechanics, materials, and structures. Malden: Wiley-Interscience; 1985.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lassila LVJ, Tanner J, Le Bell A-M, Narva K, Vallittu PK. Flexural properties of fiber reinforced root canal posts. Dent Mater. 2004;20:29–36.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bae JM, Kim KN, Hattori M, Hasegawa K, Yoshinari M, Kawada E, Oda Y. The flexural properties of fiber-reinforced composite with light-polymerized polymer matrix. Int J Prosthodont. 2001;14:33–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Väkiparta M, Yli-urpo A, Vallittu PK. Flexural properties of glass fiber reinforced composite with multiphase biopolymer matrix. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2004;15:7–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Matinlinna JP, Dahl JE, Karlsson S, Lassila LVJ, Vallittu PK. The effect of the novel silane system on the flexural properties of E-glasss fiber-reinforced composites for dental use. In: Mittal KL, editor. Silanes and Other Coupling Agents. The Netherlands: VSP/Brill Leiden; 2007. Vol. 4, pp. 83–97.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Le Bell-Rönnlöf A-M. Fiber-reinforced composites as root canal posts. Turku: The University of Turku; 2007.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Brown R. Handbook of polymer testing: short-term mechanical tests. iSmithers; 2002.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zhang M, Matinlinna JP. The effect of resin matrix composition on mechanical properties of E-glass fiber-reinforced composite for dental use. J Adhes Sci Technol. 2011;25:2687–701.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vallittu PK In: Matinlinna JP, Mittal KL (eds) Adhesion aspects in dentistry, BRILL/VSP, Leiden, The Netherlands, 2009; 63–74.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Baschek G, Hartwig G, Zahradnik F. Effect of water absorption in polymers at low and high temperatures. Polymer. 1999;40:3433–41.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rueggeberg FA. From vulcanite to vinyl, a history of resins in restorative dentistry. J Pros Dent. 2002;87:364–79.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Anfe TEA, Caneppele TMF, Agra CM, Vieira GF. Microhardness assessment of different commercial brands of resin composites with different degrees of translucence. Braz Oral Res. 2008;22:358–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lassila LV, Tezvergil A, Lahdenperä M, Alander P, Shinya P, Shinya A, Vallittu PK. Evaluation of some properties of two fiber-reinforced composite materials. Acta Odontol Scand. 2005;63:196–204.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lassila LV, Nohrström T, Vallittu PK. The influence of short-term water storage on the flexural properties of unidirectional glass fiber-reinforced composites. Biomaterials. 2002;23:2221–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chai J, Takahashi Y, Hisama K, Shimizu H. Effect of water storage on the flexural properties of three glass fiber-reinforced composites. Int J Prosthodont. 2005;18:28–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society of The Nippon Dental University 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Meng Zhang
    • 1
  • Jukka Pekka Matinlinna
    • 1
  • Michael George Botelho
    • 1
  • Eija Sinikka Säilynoja
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of DentistryThe University of Hong KongHong Kong SARPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Stick Tech LtdTurkuFinland

Personalised recommendations