Fracture toughness of seven resin composites evaluated by three methods of mode I fracture toughness (KIc)
Source abstract
Abstract
This study compared the fracture toughness values of seven resin composites and analyzed the consistency of data values using three methods: compact tension, three point and four point bending for Mode I failure. Seven resin composites were selected: Estellite Sigma Quick, Esthet X HD, Filtek Supreme XTE, Heliomolar, Ice, Rok, and Vit-l-escence. For each material, 18 specimens (n=6 for each test) were prepared. Maximum load to failure was recorded using a universal testing machine and fracture toughness was calculated. There was a direct significant correlation among all tested methods. Rok showed the highest and Estelite the lowest KIc values. SEM of the fractured surface of compact tension method showed propagation of the cracks from stresses concentrating at the corner of the notch and the surface of the sample. Four-point test gave the largest range in KIc and was a simple method to discriminate between the resin composite values of KIc.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Dental materials and restorations · Dental Trauma and Treatments · Dental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Dicle University
Restorative Section, Melbourne Dental School, The University of Melbourne
Department of Dental Materials and Biomaterials Research Center, School of Dentistry, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences
References (25)
Show source-provided references
1. 1) Thomaidis S, Kakaboura A, Mueller WD, Zinelis S. Mechanical properties of contemporary composite resins and their interrelations. Dent Mater 2013; 29: 132-141.10.1016/j.dental.2013.04.025 ↗
2. 2) Bayne SC, Heymann HO, Swift EJ Jr. Update on dental composite restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 1994; 125: 687-701.10.14219/jada.archive.1994.0113 ↗
3. 3) Kim KH, Ong JL, Okuno O. The effect of filler loading and morphology on the mechanical properties of contemporary composites. J Prosthet Dent 2002; 87: 642-649.10.1067/mpr.2002.125179 ↗
4. 4) Ilie N, Hickel R, Valceanu AS, Huth KC. Fracture toughness of dental restorative materials. Clin Oral Investig 2012; 16: 489-498.10.1007/s00784-011-0525-z ↗
5. 5) Fani M, Farmani S, Bagheri R. Fracture toughness of resin composites under different modes and media: Review of articles. J Dent Biomater 2015; 2: 73-82.
6. 6) Ferooz M, Azadeh N, Barahman N, Azar M.R. The Role of home bleaching agent on the fracture toughness of resin composites using four-point bending test. J Dent Biomater 2014; 1: 9-15.
7. 7) Bagheri R, Azar MR, Tyas MJ, Burrow MF. The effect of aging on the fracture toughness of esthetic restorative materials. Am J Dent 2010; 23: 142-146.
8. 8) Wang H, Pallav P, Isgrò G, Feilzer A. Fracture toughness comparison of three test methods with four dental porcelains. Dent Mater 2007; 7: 905-910.10.1016/j.dental.2006.06.033 ↗
9. 9) Bagheri R, Fani M, Nouri Yadkouri N, Barfi Ghasrodashti A, Mousavi SM. Effect of a home bleaching agent on the fracture toughness of resin composites: using short rod design. J Dent SUMS 2014; 15: 74-80.
10. 10) Knobloch LA, Kerby RE, Seghi R, Berlin JS, Clelland N. Fracture toughness of packable and conventional composite materials. J Prosthet Dent 2002; 88: 307-313.10.1067/mpr.2002.128069 ↗
11. 11) Fischer H, Marx R. Fracture toughness of dental ceramics: comparison of bending and indentation method. Dent Mater 2002; 18: 12-19.10.1016/S0109-5641(01)00005-7 ↗
12. 12) Fujishima A, Ferracane JL. Comparison of four modes of fracture toughness testing for dental composites. Dent Mater 1996; 12: 38-43.10.1016/S0109-5641(96)80062-5 ↗
13. 13) Watanabe H, Khera SC, Vargas MA, Qian F. Fracture toughness comparison of six resin composites. Dent Mater 2008; 24: 418-425.10.1016/j.dental.2007.06.018 ↗
14. 14) Triwatana P, Srinuan P, Suuputtamongkol K. Comparison of two fracture toughness testing methods using a glass infiltrated and a zirconia dental ceramic. J Adv Prosthodont 2013; 5: 36-43.10.4047/jap.2013.5.1.36 ↗
15. 15) Scherrer SC, Denry IL, Wiskott HW. A comparison of three fracture toughness testing techniques using a dental glass and a dental ceramic. Dent Mater 1998; 4: 246-255.10.1016/S0109-5641(98)00032-3 ↗
16. 16) International organization for standardization. ISO/FDIS 6872, 2007. Dentistry —Ceramic materials. Switzerland.
17. 17) Azar MR, Bagheri R, Burrow MF. Effect of storage media and time on the fracture toughness of resin-based luting cements. Aust Dent J 2012; 57: 349-354.10.1111/j.1834-7819.2012.01703.x ↗
18. 18) Kovarik RE, Fairhurst CW. Effect of Griffith precracks on measurement of composite fracture toughness. Dent Mater 1993; 9: 222-228.10.1016/0109-5641(93)90065-X ↗
19. 19) ASTM Standard E399-83. Standard test method for planstrain facture toughness of metalic materials. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Philadelphia, 1984: 592-622
20. 20) Quinn G.D. Fractrography of ceramics and glasses. NIST 2007; 960-917.
21. 21) Rosa RS, Balbinot CE, Blando E, Mota EG, Oshima HM, Hirakata L, Pires LA, Hübler R. Evaluation of mechanical properties on three nanofilled composites. Stomato Baltic Dent Maxillofac 2012; 14: 126-130.
22. 22) Ferracane JL. Resin composite-state of the art. Dent Mater 2011; 27: 29-38.10.1016/j.dental.2010.10.020 ↗
23. 23) Chen MH. Update on dental nanocomposites. J Dent Res 2010; 89: 549-560.10.1177/0022034510363765 ↗
24. 24) Da Costa J, Ferracane J, Paravina RD, Mazur RF, Roeder L. The effect of different polishing systems on surface roughness and gloss of various resin composites. J Esthet Restor Dent 2007; 19: 214-226.10.1111/j.1708-8240.2007.00104.x ↗
25. 25) Kim KH, Okuno O. Microfracture behaviour of composite resins containing irregular-shaped fillers. J Oral Rehabil 2002; 29: 1153-1159.10.1046/j.1365-2842.2002.00940.x ↗