Dental Materials (2004) 20, 947955

www.intl.elsevierhealth.com/journals/dema

Effect of fiber position and orientation on fracture

load of fiber-reinforced composite
Scott R. Dyera,b,*, Lippo V.J. Lassilab, Mikko Jokinenb, Pekka K. Vallittub
a

Department of Restorative Dentistry, Division of Biomaterials and Biomechanics,

Division of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Oregon Health and Science University,
611 SW Campus Drive, Portland, OR 97239, USA
b
Department of Prosthetic Dentistry and Biomaterials Research, Institute of Dentistry,
University of Turku, Turku, Finland
Received 12 March 2003; received in revised form 21 November 2003; accepted 23 December 2003

KEYWORDS
Dental material;
Composite resin; Fiber;
Fiber position; Fiber
orientation; Fracture;
Deflection; Failure mode;
Initial failure; Final
failure

Summary Objectives. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of fiber
position and orientation on the initial and final fracture loads of fiber-reinforced
composite (FRC).
Methods. Test specimens made of two indirect particulate composites (BelleGlass
HP, Kerr, Orange, CA) or (Targis, Ivoclar Vivadent, Amherst, NY) were reinforced with
ultra high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) fiber ribbon (Connect, Kerr,
Orange, CA), woven E-glass fibers (Vectris Frame, Ivoclar Vivadent, Amherst, NY) or
unidirectional R-glass fibers (Vectris Pontic, Ivoclar Vivadent, Amherst, NY). Fibers
were placed with different positions, orientations or geometry into the rhombic test
specimens (2 2 25 mm3). Control specimens did not contain fiber reinforcement.
The test specimens n 6 were stored in distilled water for 1 week at 37 8C before
testing in a three-point loading test to determine the initial and final fracture load
values.
Results. Initial failure loads varied from 22.6 to 172.1 N. The lowest value resulted
from one UHMWPE reinforcement fiber located in diagonal orientation and the highest
from two unidirectional glass fiber reinforcements, one located on the tension side and
the second on the compression side.
Significance. Position and fiber orientation influenced the load to initial and final
failure, and specimen deflection. Tension side reinforcement was most effective in
increasing the load to initial and final fracture.
Q 2004 Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction
*Corresponding author. Address: Department of Restorative
Dentistry, Division of Biomaterials and Biomechanics, Division of
Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Oregon Health and Science
University, 611 SW Campus Drive, Portland, OR 97239, USA. Tel.:
1-503-494-8335; fax: 1-503-494-8260.
E-mail address: dyers@ohsu.edu

Composite materials are a combination of two or

more distinct components forming a new material
with enhanced properties. While many combinations exist, the most common composites in
engineering are composed of strong fibers held by

0109-5641/$ - see front matter Q 2004 Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.dental.2003.12.003

948

a binder or matrix. Unlike traditional materials, the

properties of composites can be designed simultaneously with structural aspects. This allows
composite designers to manipulate material properties by changing fiber orientation, fiber content,
and geometry. Additionally, the most common
types of matrix materials are polymers [1].
Attempts have been made to reinforce dental
polymers with several types of fibers for various
treatment modalities during the past 30 years.
Studies have tested polyethylene fibers [2], carbon/
graphite fibers [3 5], or glass fibers [6 9]. There
exist potential applications for fiber-reinforced
composites (FRC) in prosthodontics, periodontics,
and orthodontics. Several in vitro studies have been
conducted to find out and understand the factors
influencing dental FRC properties [10 15]. Important factors influencing the mechanical properties of
FRCs include: (1) inherent material properties of
fibers and polymer matrices, (2) fiber surface
treatment (sizing) and impregnation of fibers with
resin, (3) adhesion of fibers to the polymer matrix,
(4) quantity of fibers [16], (5) direction of fibers, (6)
position of fibers [17 19] and (7) water sorption of
FRC matrix [16].
Previous dental FRC research on position and
orientation has focused upon the effects of the
question of fiber reinforcement directionality (i.e.
random or longitudinal orientations) [20,21]. It is
widely accepted that directional orientation of the
fiber long axis perpendicular to an applied force will
result in strength reinforcement. Forces that are
parallel to the long axis of the fibers, however,
produce matrix-dominated failures and consequently yield little actual reinforcement. Design
strategies are on occasion employed to provide
multi-directional reinforcement, to minimize the
highly anisotropic behavior of unidirectional fiber
reinforcement. Multidirectional reinforcement,
however, is accompanied by a decrease in strength
in any one direction when compared with unidirectional fiber, as described by Krenchel [22]. In
most instances in the dental literature, fiber
reinforcement has been positioned in the center
of a composite specimen [20]. Yet from engineering applications, it is known that the position and
orientation of the reinforcement within a construction influences mechanical properties [23].
For a small sized construction, such as a dental
prosthesis, the quality and characteristics of the FRC
are important and demand careful attention. Fiber
reinforcement should be optimal when designing
prostheses and their components. As an example,
the components (e.g. connector, pontic, retainer)
of a FRC fixed partial denture (FPD) need to be
designed to withstand masticatory loading [24].

S.R. Dyer et al.

While it is known that tension side fiber reinforcement strengthens a loaded construction, the effect
of varying the cross-sectional design in a FRC
structure is not fully known. Respectively, all factors
relating to design and failure of FRC structures
should be investigated and better understood.
Questions exist whether ultra high molecular
weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) fibers can be used
to fabricate a high quality dental composite structure. Criticism has been focused on findings that
interfacial adhesion between polyethylene fibers
and dental polymers is not adequate [25,26]. The use
of resin pre-impregnated silanized glass fibers
instead of non-impregnated polyethylene fibers
results in the highest mechanical properties according to the majority of recent research [27,28].
A subtle and under-reported attribute of FRC is a
description of the fracture failure. A specimen may
catastrophically fail in an instant while another may
simply bend under increasing load. In 1975, Craig
and Courtney described three modes of failure that
can occur when characterizing FRC in a tension type
test [29]. The three failure modes are described as
instantaneous (Fig. 1, Curve A), statistical (Fig. 1,
Curve B), and stepwise (Fig. 1, Curve C). Instantaneous failure occurs after a load causes a strain
concentration in a narrow region sufficient to break
the composite structure. A strain concentration
distributed to a wide region may require further
load or elongation for continued fracture. Thus
leading to what is denoted as stepwise (more
bending type) or statistical failure (series of small
intense fractures which recover before complete
failure and require more load to progress). Analysis

Figure 1 Graphical examples of tension test failure

modes of unidirectional glass FRC. Curve A is described as
instantaneous failure, curve B as statistical failure (series
of small intense fractures which are prevented from
becoming catastrophic), and curve C as stepwise failure
(more bending type). Note the designation of the knee or
corner and areas of unstable condition of the stress-strain
curve.

Effect of fiber position and orientation on fracture load of fiber-reinforced composite

949

Table 1 Description of materials used in the investigation.

Materials used (from manufacturers information)
Name

General composition

Batch number

Manufacturer

BelleGlass HP

Methacrylate ester monomer/BisGMA/TEGDMA particulate

composite (78% filler: Ba-Silicate, SiO2)
Gas plasma treated woven polyethylene (reactive
methacrylate ester monomers)
Methacrylate ester monomer/Bis-GMA/TEGDMA particulate
composite (74% filler: Ba-Silicate, SiO2)
Bis-GMA/UDMA/DDMA particulate composite (80% filler:
Ba-Silicate, SiO2)
Woven E-glass (50% weight). Bis-GMA/UDMA/DDMA/TEGDMA
matrix (5% filler: SiO2)
Unidirectional R-glass (65% weight). BisGMA/UDMA/DDMA/TEGDMA matrix (3.5% filler: SiO2)

809477

Kerr/Sybron (Orange, CA)

9911065

Kerr/Sybron (Orange, CA)

907626

Kerr/Sybron (Orange, CA)

B06115

Ivoclar Vivadent (Amherst, NY)

A95063

Ivoclar Vivadent (Amherst, NY)

A95049

Ivoclar Vivadent (Amherst, NY)

Connect
Connect resin
Targis
Vectris frame
Vectris Pontic

BISGMA 2,2-bis[4-(2-hydroxy-3-methacrylyl-oxyporpoxy)phenyl]propane; DDMA decandiol dimethacrylate; TEGDMA

triethyleneglycol-dimethacrylate; UDMA urethane dimethacrylate.

of the mode of failure can give insight on how and

why failure occurs. Accurate reporting should
therefore include when the fracture begins (initial
fracture), how it progresses, and when it finishes
(final fracture) [30].
The aim of this study was to compare the effect
of various positions, orientations, and geometries
of glass and polyethylene fibers in a dental
particulate composite test specimen upon the
initial and final fracture load. It was hypothesized
that there would be no difference in load to failure
among designed specimen groups.

Materials and methods

The materials used in the study are given in Table 1.
Rhombic test specimens (2 2 25 mm3) were
made in a three-piece stainless steel mold. Three
main groups of specimen were categorized according to the type of fiber used in each test bar.
Specimens were fabricated according to selected
cross-sectional designs as shown in Fig. 2. Test
groups (n 6/group) consisted of a cross-sectional
design of specific fiber reinforcement.
Specimens in the main group, PE ( polyethylene
fiber-reinforced composite), consisted of the par-

ticulate composite Belleglass HP (Kerr, Orange,

CA) and the cold gas plasma treated ultra high
molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE)
reinforcement Connect (Kerr, Orange, CA). The
UHMWPE ribbon was hand impregnated with the
light curing resin, Connect Resin (Kerr, Orange,
CA). The UHMWPE braided weave (two over/two
under) was dispensed to a length of 25 mm from a
2 mm wide spool and classified as one unit of
fiber reinforcement (weight accepted 0.0092 ^
0.0002 g). Group PE received 2 min of visible light
cure followed by a post cure of 138 8C for 20 min.
Specimen group, W (woven E-glass fiber-reinforced
composite), contained the particulate composite
Targis and Vectris Frame (Ivoclar Vivadent,
Amherst, NY), a preimpregnated woven E-glass
(electrical glass). A 2 0.4 25 mm 3 section
(weight accepted 0.0412 ^ 0.0002 g) was cut
from the preformed woven fiber (one under/three
over). The specimens were light cured for 2 min
with a post cure in a visible light cure chamber
(Targis Power, Ivoclar/Vivadent, Amherst, NY)
for 20 min. Specimen group U (unidirectional
fiber-reinforced composite) denote test specimens
made of the particulate composite Targis
and Vectris Pontic (Ivoclar/Vivadent, Amherst,
NY), a preimpregnated unidirectional R-glass. The

Figure 2 An example of the derivation of the cross-sectional pictogram. Object A is a three-dimensional depiction of
the specimen with fiber reinforcement (B) in the center of the long axis of the rhombic bar. The resulting pictogram (C)
is the representation of the cross-sectional design of the specimen.

950

S.R. Dyer et al.

unidirectional fiber was cut to 25 mm length

and separated into weighed increments
(0.068 ^ 0.002 g), designating one fiber reinforcement group. Specimens in group U were cured
according to the method described for group W.
Cross sections were designed to test possible
structural formulations of fiber position and orientation. Seven simple cross-sectional designs such
as fibers positioned on the compression or tension
side were used in all three main groups. More
complex designs were created with the fiber
reinforcement as practical within each group (2 5
complex designs in each main group). The threedimensional cross-sectional designs were converted into two-dimensional pictograms like the
example in Fig. 2 for ease of description and are
presented in Tables 1 3. The fiber positions are
depicted as solid black lines within the square
outline of the specimen. The specimens were

fabricated with the three-piece metal mold upon

a clean glass slide and separating sheet. The
particulate composite and fiber reinforcement
were hand incorporated with special attention to
form the desired design without void inclusions.
Another clear plastic matrix was placed on top
of the mold with a clean glass slide and the
initial 2 min light cure was initiated. Specimens
were carefully released from the metal fabrication
mold. Only specimens with dimensions of
2.0 mm (^ 0.1 mm) 2.0 mm (^ 0.1 mm) 25 mm
(^ 1.0 mm) were accepted. Five of the 204 specimens were rejected due to heights greater than
2.1 mm. Those specimens were fabricated again
and the resulting dimensions were within the
acceptable range. Fiber weight and volume percent were calculated and verified with an ashen
test [10] with mechanical removal of the ceramic
particulate fillers.

Table 2 Report of fiber weight % and volume % and the deflection in mm at initial failure (IF) and final failure (FF) with the failure
mode description (by %) for UHMWPE designs. The specimen names correspond with the adjacent cross-sectional design pictorial
(lines within depict where the corresponding fiber was placed). Superscript letters denote groups not statistically different
( p , 0.001) for each test.
Bar type:
PE

Fiber
weight %

Fiber
volume %

Mean initial failure

deflection in mm (S.D.)

Mean final failure

deflection in mm (S.D.)

Failure mode % (instantaneous/

stepwise/statistical)

NF

0.48 (0.08)A,B

0.48 (0.08)X

(100/0/0)

1 Diag

4.1

9.3

0.46 (0.04)A,B

3.0 (0.40)Y

(16.7/33.3/50)

1 TF

0.43 (0.07)A,B

0.43 (0.07)X

(100/0/0)

1 MF

0.47 (0.11)B,C

3.3 (2.3)Y

(33.3/0/66.7)

1 MPF

0.39 (0.035)A

2.7 (0.26)X

(0/0/100)

1 BF

0.62 (0.89)A,B,C

2.0 (0.27)X,Y

(0/33.3/66.7)

0.78 (0.17)B,C

1.5 (0.30)X,Y

(16.7/33.3/50)

0.47 (0.51)A,B

2.6 (0.11)Y

(0/0/100)

2.2 (0.49)E

2.2 (0.49)X,Y

(0/100/0)

2.3 (0.24)E

2.3 (0.24)Y

(0/100/0)

0.52 (0.65)A,B

2.8 (0.36)Y

(0/66.7/33.3)

3 Perp

0.93 (0.10)C

2.7 (0.55)Y

(0/33.3/66.7)

3 Z Bar

1.3 (0.26)D

3.1 (0.89)Y

(0/33.3/66.7)

2.1 (0.15)E

2.7 (0.64)Y

(33.3/67.7/0)

2 Perp

Symbol

8.2

18.6

2 Para
8 Perp

39.7

75.8

8 Para
3 Para

I (5) BAR

12.3

20.5

28.0

46.5

Effect of fiber position and orientation on fracture load of fiber-reinforced composite

951

Table 3 Report of fiber weight % and volume % and the deflection in mm at initial failure (IF) and final failure (FF) with the failure
mode description (by %) for woven E-glass designs. The specimen names correspond with the adjacent cross-sectional design
pictorial (lines within depict where the corresponding fiber was placed). The specimen W (4) @ Comp denotes that four increments
of woven e-glass surround the particulate composite. Superscript letters denote groups not statistically different ( p , 0.001) for
each test.
Bar type: W

Symbol Fiber
Fiber
Mean initial failure
Mean final failure
Failure mode % (instantaneous/
weight % volume % deflection in mm (S.D.) deflection in mm (S.D.) stepwise/statistical)

NF

0.63 (0.18)A,B,C

0.63 (0.18)W,X,Y

(100/0/0)

1 TF

9.2

8.1

0.42 (0.15)A,B

0.42 (0.15)W

(100/0/0)

1 MF

0.37 (0.09)A

0.85 (0.55)W,X,Y

(50/0/50)

1 MPF

0.44 (0.06)A,B

0.57 (0.16)W,X

(33.3/50/16.7)

1 BF

0.82 (0.15)C

1.0 (0.31)Y,Z

(66.7/16.7/16.7)

0.88 (0.20)C

0.90 (0.20)X,Y

(100/0/0)

0.69 (0.12)B,C

0.79 (0.13)W,X,Y

(66.7/16.7/16.7)

1.2 (0.17)D

1.4 (0.13)Z

(16.7/83.3/0)

1.2 (0.11)D

1.5 (0.09)Z

(0/100/0)

0.80 (0.19)C

1.4 (0.10)Z

(50/ 16.7/33.3)

2 Perp

18.4

16.2

2 Para
5 Perp

47.7

44.1

5 Para
W (4) @ Comp

36

32.4

All specimens were stored at 37 8C in distilled

water for 1 week [31]. The three-point bending test
was conducted according to the ISO 10477 (test
span: 20 mm, cross-head speed: 1.0 mm/min,
indenter: 2 mm diameter) with the specimen wet
directly from the storage container. All samples
were loaded in material testing machine (model
LRX, Lloyd Instruments Ltd, Fareham, England)
and the load-deflection curves were recorded with
PC-computer software (Nexygen, Lloyd Instruments
Ltd, Fareham, England).
The beginning of the specimen damage formation was classified as the initial failure (IF). IF
was denoted if at least two of the following
conditions were present, (1) a sharp decline in the
load/displacement curve, called a knee or corner
[23], (2) visible signs of fracture [23], (3) audible
emissions, caused by the generation of elastic
waves by crack formation and/or progression [23,
30,32]. The final failure (FF) of the specimen was
characterized as one of the following: (1) attainment of an instability condition, defined as a zero
(or negative) slope of applied stress verses strain
[30], or (2) the maximal load or displacement
before the load decreased by 50% or an apparent
catastrophic rupture. The fracture mode was

determined after testing following Craig and Courtneys descriptions [29].

Means and standard deviations were calculated
and reported. ANOVA and the post hoc test Tukeys
multiple comparison test were used to determine
the significance of the data within fiber groups for
IF, FF, deflection at IF, and deflection at FF (Winks,
TexaSoft, Cedar Hill, TX).

Results
The mean load required to cause IF of UHMWPE
fiber-reinforced test specimen varied from 22.6 to
108.0 N and from 33.1 to 108.8 N for FF (Fig. 3,
Panel A). Table 2 shows the mean deflection of
UHMWPE reinforced test specimens at IF and FF,
statistical groupings, weight and volume percents,
and description of the fracture mode by percent of
specimen. The mean load to IF of woven glass fiberreinforced test specimens varied from 23.7 to
166.0 N and for FF from 24.6 to 166.7 N (Fig. 3,
Panel B). Table 3 shows the mean deflection of the
woven E-glass reinforced test specimen at IF and FF,
statistical groupings, weight and volume percents,

952

S.R. Dyer et al.

Figure 3 Graphic representations of the load to initial and final failure (in Newtons) of various cross-sectional FRC
designs. The pictorial cross-sectional symbols depict the design of fiber incorporation and correspond with Tables 2 4.
Letters within the graphs denote specimen groups that are statistically not different ( p , 0.001) for test. The y-bars
represent standard deviations. Panel A shows the results for UHMWPE, panel B for woven E-glass, and panel C for
unidirectional R-glass.

and description of the fracture mode by percent of

specimen. The highest load for the initial and final
failure (172.1 and 184.0 N, respectively) was found
with specimens reinforced with unidirectional glass

fibers (Fig. 3, Panel C). The mean deflection at IF

was lowest with unidirectional glass fibers in the
compression side of the specimen at 0.322 mm
(Table 4). Statistical analysis with ANOVA revealed

Effect of fiber position and orientation on fracture load of fiber-reinforced composite

953

Table 4 Report of fiber weight % and volume % and the deflection in mm at initial failure (IF) and final failure (FF) with the failure
mode description (by %) for unidirectional R-glass designs. The specimen names correspond with the adjacent cross-sectional design
pictorial (lines within depict where the corresponding fiber was placed). The specimen U (2) @ Comp denotes 2 units of
unidirectional glass surrounding the particulate composite, Comp @ Uni (1) denotes 1 unit of unidirectional fiber centered in a
specimen of particulate composite, and W (4) @ Uni (1) denotes that four increments of woven e-glass surround 1 unit of
unidirectional reinforcement. Superscript letters denote groups not statistically different ( p , 0.001) for each test.
Bar type: U

Fiber
weight %

Fiber
volume %

Mean initial failure

deflection in mm

Mean final failure

deflection in mm (S.D.)

Failure mode % (instantaneous/

stepwise/statistical)

NF

0.63 (0.18)A,B,C

0.63 (0.18)V

(100/0/0)

1 TF

19.7

17.4

0.32 (0.05)A

0.32 (0.06)V

(100/0/0)

1 MF

0.45 (0.08)A

4.1 (0.27)Z

(0/16.7/83.3)

1 MPF

0.62 (0.16)A,B

1.6 (0.10)W

(16.7/0/83.3)

1 BF

2.0 (0.33)E

3.4 (4.3)Y

(0/83.3/16.7)

0.90 (0.08)B,C

1.8 (0.80)W

(16.7/50/33.3)

0.90 (0.09)B,C

1.8 (0.23)W

(0/16.7/83.3)

2 Perp

Symbol

39.4

34.8

2 Para
4 Fiber

60.7

57.3

0.93 (0.04)C

2.3 (0.25)W,X

(0/100/0)

U (2)@ Comp

39.4

34.8

0.92 (0.12)B,C

2.2 (0.25)W,X

(0/100/0)

Comp @ U(1)

19.4

17.4

0.43 (0.13)A

2.7 (0.32)X,Y

(0/0/100)

Woven (4) @
Uni (1)

59.2

52.2

1.4 (0.22)D

2.12 (0.55)W,X

(16.7/83.3/0)

that fiber position and orientation significantly

affected the initial and final failure loads
( p , 0.001). Results of the post hoc analysis are
given within the graphs in Fig. 3 and in Tables 2 4
(letters denote groups that are not statistically
different).

Discussion
This study demonstrated the influence of positioning of various types of fibers on the fracture load of
FRC test specimens. Principally, a similar test setup was used when Vallittu in 1993 reported that
position change of metal reinforcement made no
significant difference on the strength of denture
base polymer. That result was likely attributed to
poor interfacial adhesion between metal and the
denture base polymer. Positioning of unidirectional
E-glass fiber in the same study did show significant
effect on strength and modulus of elasticity of FRC
materials 33]. In this study, more complicated cross

sectional designs of fiber/matrix structures were

tested.
Describing the FRC failure with fracture indicators and mode characterization may provide
needed insight into composite structure design.
Fracture mode and IF have not been previously
analyzed in regards to dental FRC. Reporting elastic
limit and ultimate strength undoubtedly has its
their place in materials science. The question,
however, of what did the fiber reinforcement
actually accomplish, is answered in part by describing the changes in the IF, FF, and fracture mode.
There was no difference between an ultimate
strength value and initial failure for certain specimens (e.g. unreinforced controls and other experimental reinforced designs) because the failure
mode was instantaneous. There was clear distinction between IF and FF for other specimens (e.g. PE
groups 3 Para, 1 MF and U group 1 MF).
Reporting solely the ultimate strength of such
specimens ignores the fracture process that began
at a much lower load. Damage and failure initiation,
before permanent deformation, may induce or

954

accelerate undesirable effects. For example, water

ingress will reduce the service and lifetime of the
structure [1]. Initial failure may consequently be a
more sensitive or useful an indicator than ultimate
strength for in vitro strength evaluation and
possible clinical interpretation.
Regarding composite design principles for continuous reinforcement, placement of fiber in regions
other than the tension side showed no significant
increase in the load to IF. This is in agreement with
early studies [18,19]. The specimen IF agreed with
the findings that in failure the performance of FRCs is
regarded as fiber or matrix dominated, which
evolved from the observation that failure is dominated by one of the composite constituents, not
usually a combination of both [34]. This experiment
essentially demonstrated that IF performance was
dominated by the particulate or fiber-reinforced
composite. While FRC materials have the ability to
slow or arrest crack propagation, fatigue and
hygrothermal corrosion may advance the crack to
complete or partial failure (e.g. delamination) [34].
The fiber reinforcement minimized the instantaneous and catastrophic failures while additionally
retaining specimen fragments. Greater load was
needed to advance the fracture process for the
majority of designs. The design considerations of a
composite construction would need to address
performance criteria of elevating the required load
to initial failure or simply maintaining component
fragments after fracture.
An example of the effect of fiber configuration
orientation can be seen when comparing the load to
IF of PE groups 3 Para, 3 Perp, 3 Z bar. In many
cases, a simple change in fiber orientation statistically affected the load to failure. The use of eight
UHMWPE fibers in the bar 8 Perp, creating a
laminate composite, resulted in lower load to IF
than the geometrical design of five fiber groups in
the I (5) bar. Such design characteristics may be
possibly employed in prosthetic components.
Two of the FRC materials used in this study were
in an unpolymerized pre-preg form (woven and
unidirectional glass fibers) and one was wetted with
polymer resin at the time of specimen assembly.
The overall fabrication technique, however, is
classified as a hand lay up process. The hand lay
up process is typically subject to more errors in FRC
fabrication than other techniques such as pultrusion
or bag transfer molding [1]. In the case of these
dental FRC specimens the seven common designs
required relatively minimal effort of fabrication.
The complex FRC designs increased the technical
difficulty and time (approximately five times)
required for fabrication. Of the complex crosssectional designs in all three main groups, only two

S.R. Dyer et al.

of the complex UHMWPE designs (3 Z bar and I (5)

bar) had significantly higher loads to initial failure
that the simple designs.
Scanning electron microscopy has shown good
adhesion between glass fiber and matrix along with
relatively poor adhesion between UHMWPE and
matrix resins [25]. An effect of this may be evident
in the PE bar 1 Diag, which had a lower load to IF
than the control, though not significantly. Regardless, UHMWPE tension side reinforcement increased
the load to IF by 60%, while complex UHMWPE
geometry raised the load to IF by a 220% increase.
Unidirectional glass fiber appears to reinforce the
test specimen when even partially positioned at the
tension side (group U, 1 MPF and 2 Para).
Increased flexural rigidity of the specimen may
also contribute increased load to failure. Further
investigation is required to delineate between the
contributions of increased stiffness and tension side
reinforcement.
While more sophisticated equipment is becoming
prevalent for acoustic emission analysis [32], the use
of audible emission, even without amplification,1
provided verification of IF with the stress strain
curve knee. Investigations in composite structures,
notably FRC, not recording or reporting damage
initiation and accumulation are omitting valuable
data. The methodology used in this investigation
limits interpretation to statically loaded rhombic
test specimens. Fatigue loading complex specimen
designs could address questions more closely related
to masticatory loading in the oral environment.

Acknowledgements
This study was financially supported the Finnish
Technology Agency (TEKES). A portion of the work
was conducted under the NASA/Texas Space Consortium 2002-2003 Fellowship. Materials were supplied by the manufacturers, which is greatly
appreciated.

References
[1] Barbero EJ. Introduction to composite material design. Ann
Arbor, MI: Taylor and Francis; 1998. pp. 2 and 9.
[2] Ladizesky NH, Ho CF, Chow TW. Reinforcement of complete
denture bases with continuous high performance polyethylene fibers. J Prosthet Dent 1992;68(6):9349.
[3] Kilfoil BM, Hesby RA, Pelleu Jr GB. The tensile strength of a
composite resin reinforced with carbon fibers. J Prosthet
Dent 1983;50(1):403.
[4] Malquarti G, Berruet RG, Bois D. Prosthetic use of carbon
fiber-reinforced epoxy resin for esthetic crowns and fixed
partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1990;63(3):2517.

Effect of fiber position and orientation on fracture load of fiber-reinforced composite

[5] Ruyter IE, Ekstrand K, Bjork N. Development of carbon/

graphite fiber reinforced poly (methyl methacrylate)
suitable for implant-fixed dental bridges. Dent Mater
1986;2(1):69.
[6] Goldberg AJ, Burstone CJ. The use of continuous fiber
reinforcement in dentistry. Dent Mater 1992;8(3):197202.
[7] Imai T, Yamagata S, Watari, F, Kobayashi, M, Nagayama K,
Toyoizumi H, Uga M, Nakamura S. Temperature-dependence of the mechanical properties of FRP orthodontic
wire. Dent Mater J 1999;18(2):16775.
[8] Meiers JC, Freilich MA. Conservative anterior tooth replacement using fiber-reinforced composite. Oper Dent 2000;
25(3):23943.
[9] Vallittu PK. A review of fiber-reinforced denture base
resins. J Prosthodont 1996;5(4):2706.
[10] Vallittu PK, Lassila VP, Lappalainen R. Transverse strength
and fatigue of denture acrylicglass fiber composite. Dent
Mater 1994;10(2):11621.
[11] Viguie G, Malquarti G, Vincent B, Bourgeois D. Epoxy/
carbon composite resins in dentistry: mechanical properties
related to fiber reinforcements. J Prosthet Dent 1994;
72(3):2459.
[12] Behr M, Rosentritt M, Lang R, Handel G. Flexural properties
of fiber reinforced composite using a vacuum/pressure or a
manual adaptation manufacturing process. J Dent 2000;
28(7):50914.
[13] Vallittu PK. Compositional and weave pattern analyses of
glass fibers in dental polymer fiber composites.
J Prosthodont 1998;7(3):1706.
[14] Vallittu PK. Effect of 180-week water storage on the flexural
properties of E-glass and silica fiber acrylic resin composite.
Int J Prosthodont 2000;13(4):3349.
[15] Nohrstrom TJ, Vallittu PK, Yli-Urpo A. The effect of
placement and quantity of glass fibers on the fracture
resistance of interim fixed partial dentures. Int J Prosthodont 2000;13(1):728.
[16] Lassila LV, Nohrstrom T, Vallittu PK. The influence of shortterm water storage on the flexural properties of unidirectional glass fiber-reinforced composites. Biomaterials
2002;23(10):22219.
[17] Vallittu PK. Strength and interfacial adhesion of FRC-tooth
system. In: Vallittu PK, editor. The Second International
Symposium on Fibre-Reinforced Plastics in Dentistry.
Symposium Book on the Scientific Workshop on Dental
Fibre-Reinforced Composite on 13 October 2001 in Nijmegen, The Netherlands; 2002.
[18] Chung KH, Ling T, Wang F. Flexural strength of a provisional
resin material with fibre addition. J Oral Rehabil 1998;25:
2147.
[19] Ellakwa AE, Shortall AC, Shehata MK, Marquis PM. The
influence of fibre placement and position on the efficiency

[20]

[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]
[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

955

of reinforcement of fibre reinforced composite bridgework.

J Oral Rehabil 2001;28(8):78591.
DeBoer J, Vermilyea SG, Brady RE. The effect of carbon
fiber orientation on the fatigue resistance and bending
properties of two denture resins. J Prosthet Dent 1984;
51(1):11921.
Galan D, Lynch E. The effect of reinforcing fibres in denture
acrylics. J Irish Dent Assoc 1989;35(3):10913.
Vishu S. Handbook of plastic testing technology, 2nd ed.
New York: John Wiley; 1998. pp. 546.
Hull D. An introduction to composite materials. Cambridge:
University Press; 1990. pp. vii, 245, 367.
Dyer SR. Current design factors in fiber reinforced composite fixed partial dentures. In: Vallittu PK, editor. The
Second International Symposium on Fibre-Reinforced Plastics in Dentistry. Symposium Book on the Scientific Workshop on Dental Fibre-Reinforced Composite on 13 October
2001 in Nijmegen, The Netherlands; 2002.
Vallittu PK. Ultra-high-modulus polyethylene ribbon as
reinforcement for denture polymethyl methacrylate: a
short communication. Dent Mater 1997;13(6):3812.
Takagi K, Fujimatsu H, Usami H, Ogasawara S. Adhesion
between high strength and high modulus polyethylene fibers
by use of polyethylene gel as an adhesive. J Adhesion Sci
Technol 1996;9:86982.
Bae JM, Kim KN, Hattori M, Hasegawa K, Yoshinari M,
Kawada E, Oda Y. The flexural properties of fiberreinforced composite with light-polymerized polymer
matrix. Int J Prosthodont 2001;14(1):339.
Goldberg AJ, Freilich MA. Materials design and clinical
experience with fiber composites in dentistry. In: Vallittu
PK, editor. The First Symposium on Fibre Reinforced
Plastics in Dentistry. Symposium Book of the European
Prosthodontic Association 22nd Annual Conference in
Turku, Finland, 2729 August 1998; 1999.
Craig WH, Courtney TH. On the tension test as a means of
characterizing fibre composite failure mode. J Mater Sci
1975;10:111926.
Herakovich C. Mechanics of fiber composites. New York:
Wiley; 1998. pp. 305, 32259.
Miettinen VM, Narva KK, Vallittu PK. Water sorption and
solubility of glass fiber-reinforced denture polymethyl
methacrylate resin. J Prosthet Dent 1997;77(5):5314.
Giordano M, Calabro A, Esposito C, DAmore A, Nicolais L.
An acoustic-emission characterization of the failure modes
in polymer-composite materials. Compos Sci Technol 1998;
58:19238.
Vallittu PK. Effect of some properties of metal strengtheners on the fracture resistance of acrylic denture base
material construction. J Oral Rehabil 1993;20(3):2418.
Scheirs J. Compositional and failure analysis of polymers: a
practical approach. New York: Wiley; 2000. pp. 44981.