The effect of different fiber reinforcements on flexural strength of provisional restorative resins: an in-vitro study

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the flexural strength of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) and bis-acryl composite resin reinforced with polyethylene and glass fibers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three groups of rectangular test specimens (n = 15) of each of the two resin/fiber reinforcement were prepared for flexural strength test and unreinforced group served as the control. Specimens were loaded in a universal testing machine until fracture. The mean flexural strengths (MPa) was compared by one way ANOVA test, followed by Scheffe analysis, using a significance level of 0.05. Flexural strength between fiber-reinforced resin groups were compared by independent samples t-test. RESULTS: For control groups, the flexural strength for PMMA (215.53 MPa) was significantly lower than for bis-acryl composite resin (240.09 MPa). Glass fiber reinforcement produced significantly higher flexural strength for both PMMA (267.01 MPa) and bis-acryl composite resin (305.65 MPa), but the polyethylene fibers showed no significant difference (PMMA resin-218.55 MPa and bis-acryl composite resin-241.66 MPa). Among the reinforced groups, silane impregnated glass fibers showed highest flexural strength for bis-acryl composite resin (305.65 MPa). CONCLUSION: Of two fiber reinforcement methods evaluated, glass fiber reinforcement for the PMMA resin and bis-acryl composite resin materials produced highest flexural strength. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: On the basis of this in-vitro study, the use of glass and polyethylene fibers may be an effective way to reinforce provisional restorative resins. When esthetics and space are of concern, glass fiber seems to be the most appropriate method for reinforcing provisional restorative resins.

The effect of different fiber reinforcements on flexural strength of provisional restorative resins: an in-vitro study

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the flexural strength of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) and bis-acryl composite resin reinforced with polyethylene and glass fibers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three groups of rectangular test specimens (n = 15) of each of the two resin/fiber reinforcement were prepared for flexural strength test and unreinforced group served as the control. Specimens were loaded in a universal testing machine until fracture. The mean flexural strengths (MPa) was compared by one way ANOVA test, followed by Scheffe analysis, using a significance level of 0.05. Flexural strength between fiber-reinforced resin groups were compared by independent samples t-test. RESULTS: For control groups, the flexural strength for PMMA (215.53 MPa) was significantly lower than for bis-acryl composite resin (240.09 MPa). Glass fiber reinforcement produced significantly higher flexural strength for both PMMA (267.01 MPa) and bis-acryl composite resin (305.65 MPa), but the polyethylene fibers showed no significant difference (PMMA resin-218.55 MPa and bis-acryl composite resin-241.66 MPa). Among the reinforced groups, silane impregnated glass fibers showed highest flexural strength for bis-acryl composite resin (305.65 MPa). CONCLUSION: Of two fiber reinforcement methods evaluated, glass fiber reinforcement for the PMMA resin and bis-acryl composite resin materials produced highest flexural strength. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: On the basis of this in-vitro study, the use of glass and polyethylene fibers may be an effective way to reinforce provisional restorative resins. When esthetics and space are of concern, glass fiber seems to be the most appropriate method for reinforcing provisional restorative resins.