Limiting Hardness of Polymer/Ceramic Composites
The main deficiency of proprietary composite materials for esthetic restoration of teeth is that they are much less resistant to wear than enamel. Many factors are involved in such a complex service property as some simpler related property. Limiting attention to static mechanical properties, it is to be noted that the proprietary composite materials are not inferior to enamel in respect of compression strength and tensile strength. On the other hand, it is well known that they are much softer, generally having a Knoop hardness number less than 60 Kg/mm2 whereas values near 380 have been reported for enamel (1,2). An obvious reason for this difference is that enamel contains a much greater ceramic content (95 wt-%) than most proprietary materials (60–80 wt-%). This might be rationalized in relation to wear by supposing that closely packed ceramic particles behave cooperatively and cannot be dislodged as easily from the surface as isolated particles. The objective of the present work is to find how hardness depends on the loading of ceramic particles in a polymeric matrix.
KeywordsSilane Coupling Agent Glycol Dimethacrylate Diamond Wheel Ethylene Glycol Dimethacrylate Knoop Hardness
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 3.J. D. Taylor and M. Layman, Palaeontology, 15, 73 (1972)Google Scholar
- 4.J. S. Hardman and B. A. Lilley, Nature, 228 353 (1970)Google Scholar
- 5.J. A. Hersey and J. E. Rees. Nature, Phys. Sci. Ed., 230 22 March (1971)Google Scholar
- 6.Product Information Sheet No. 12–79 on “Profile”, S. S. White Company, Philadelphia (1979)Google Scholar