d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 3 4 ( 2 0 1 8 ) 598–606

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

journal homepage: www.intl.elsevierhealth.com/journals/dema

Mechanical properties and fracture behavior of

flowable fiber reinforced composite restorations

Lippo Lassila a,b , Filip Keulemans a , Eija Säilynoja c , Pekka K. Vallittu a,b,d ,
Sufyan Garoushi a,b,∗
a Department of Biomaterials Science, Institute of Dentistry, University of Turku, Finland
b Turku Clinical Biomaterial Center—TCBC, Institute of Dentistry, University of Turku, Turku, Finland
c Research Development and Production Department, Stick Tech Ltd—Member of GC Group, Turku, Finland
d City of Turku Welfare Division, Oral Health Care, Turku, Finland

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Objective. The aim was to evaluate the effect of short glass-fiber/filler particles proportion
Received 30 August 2017 on fracture toughness (FT) and flexural strength (FS) of an experimental flowable fiber-
Received in revised form reinforced composite (Exp-SFRC) with two methacrylate resin formulations. In addition,
18 November 2017 we wanted to investigate how the fracture-behavior of composite restorations affected by
Accepted 8 January 2018 FT values of SFRC-substructure.
Methods. Exp-SFRC was prepared by mixing 50 wt% of dimethacrylate based resin matrix
(bisGMA or UDMA based) to 50 wt% of various weight fractions of glass-fiber/particulate
Keywords: filler (0:50, 10:40, 20:30, 30:20, 40:10, 50:0 wt%, respectively). FT and FS were determined for
Fiber reinforced flowable composite each experimental material following standards. Specimens (n = 8) were dry stored (37 ◦ C for
Fracture toughness 2 days) before they were tested. Four groups of posterior composite crowns (n = 6) composed
Posterior restoration of different Exp-SFRCs as substructure and surface layer of commercial particulate filler
composite were fabricated. Crowns were statically loaded until fracture. Failure modes were
visually examined. The results were statistically analysed using ANOVA followed by post hoc
Tukey’s test.
Results. ANOVA revealed that ratio of glass-fiber/particulate filler had significant effect
(p < 0.05) on tested mechanical properties of the Exp-SFRC with both monomer systems.
Exp-SFRC (50 wt%) had significantly higher FT (2.6 MPam1/2 ) and FS (175.5 MPa) (p < 0.05) com-
pared to non-reinforced material (1.3 MPam1/2 , 123 MPa). Failure mode analysis of crown
restorations revealed that FT value of the substructure directly influenced the failure mode.
Significance. This study shows that short glass-fibers can significantly reinforce flowable com-
posite resin and the FT value of SFRC-substructure has prior importance, as it influences
the crack arresting mechanism.
© 2018 The Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

∗
Corresponding author at: Department of Biomaterials Science, Institute of Dentistry and TCBC, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.
E-mail address: sufgar@utu.fi (S. Garoushi).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2018.01.002
0109-5641/© 2018 The Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 3 4 ( 2 0 1 8 ) 598–606
1. Introduction
Today, particulate filler composite resins (PFCs) are selected
on a regular basis for direct and laboratory made poste-
rior restorations, as an extension to their original indication,
which was limited to direct restorations in anterior teeth.
Their use has been widened not only to the posterior intra-
coronal area, but also to extra-coronal restorations [1]. In
addition, composite resins came into focus for the fabrica-
tion of resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses (RBFDP) after the
introduction of fiber-reinforced composites (FRC). However,
insufficient material properties limited the success of com-
posite restorations in high stress bearing areas [2,3]. Fracture
within the body (bulk) and margins of restorations and sec-
ondary caries have been cited as major problems regarding
the failure of posterior composites [4]. The fracture related
material properties, such as fracture resistance, deforma-
tion under occlusal load, and the marginal degradation of
materials have usually been evaluated by the determination
of the basic material parameters of flexural strength and
fracture toughness [5]. Fracture toughness is a mechanical
property that describes the resistance of brittle materials to
the catastrophic propagation of flaws under an applied load,
and thus, it describes damage tolerance of the material and
can be seen as a measure of fatigue resistance. Fracture tough-
ness values are dependent on the physical properties and
chemical composition of the individual component of restora-
tive material. From a biomimetic point of view, we strive to
replace lost tooth tissue by biomaterials with similar physi-
cal properties, especially with reference to flexural strength,
modulus and thermal expansion coefficient [6]. A generally
accepted biomimetic restorative approach advocates replac-
ing enamel with feldspathic porcelain or glass ceramic and
dentine by hybrid composites [6,7]. Although such approach
seems effective there are still relevant mechanical properties,
such as fracture toughness, not taken into account. Fracture
toughness of hybrid PFC is significantly lower than that of
dentine [8]. Furthermore, the microstructure of hybrid com-
posite does not match that of dentine. Hybrid PFC consists of
filler particles embedded in a resin matrix while dentine con-
sists of collagen fibers embedded in a hydroxyapatite matrix.
Therefore dentine should be rather seen as a fiber-reinforced
composite instead of a particulate filler composite. For that
reason improvement could be found when taking advantage of
a more dentine-like and high toughness composite as dentine
replacement. A material which has high fracture toughness
has the ability to better resist crack initiation and propagation.
Consequently, the property of fracture toughness and flexural
strength become important criterions in a dental materials’
longevity [9,10].
Till now, composite resins reinforced with millimetre scale
short glass fibres (SFRC) are the most interesting materi-
als because of their close resemblance to dentine at the
level of microstructure and mechanical properties [11–14].
This composite was previously reported to exhibit improved
mechanical properties regarding strength, fracture toughness,
fatigue resistance and polymerisation shrinkage and to show a
more favorable (repairable) type of failure behavior in compar-
ison to particulate filler composite [15–17]. The discontinuous
599
fibers lengths for the SFRC were measured between 0.3 mm
and 1.9 mm, which makes the lowest aspect ratio 18 and great-
est 112 [18].
Many of the properties of fiber composites are strongly
dependent on microstructural parameters such as resin
matrix, fiber diameter, fiber length, fiber orientation and fiber
loading [18,19]. The intent of this study was to evaluate the
effect of microfibers loading and resin matrix type on the
mechanical properties of flowable dental resin composite. To
the authorś knowledge, very little research exists in this field.
Thus, the hypothesis evaluated was that a flowable dental
composite may be significantly reinforced by incorporating
randomly distributed microfibers, i.e. fibers of smaller diame-
ter and length than those used in the SFRC which is available
commercially (everX Posterior). Further it was hypothesized
that, fracture behavior of biomimetic composite restorations
can be affected by fracture toughness values of SFRC substruc-
ture (core material).
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Materials
Bisphenol-A-glycidyl dimethacrylate (bis-GMA), triethylene
glycol dimethacrylate (TEGDMA), and polymethylmethacry-
late (PMMA) were purchased from Esstech Inc. (Essington, PA,
USA). Diurethane dimethacrylate (UDMA), camphoroquinone
(CQ), and N,N -dimethyl aminoethyl methacrylate (DMAEMA)
were obtained from Sigma-Aldrich Co. (St Louis, MO, USA).
Silaned (␥-methacryloxypropyl-tri-methoxy-silane) BaAlSiO2
filler particles were received from Schott (UltraFine GM27884,
Schott, Landshut, Germany). All of reagents were used without
purification.
2.2. Production of flowable fiber reinforced composite
Experimental flowable short fiber reinforced composite
(Exp-SFRC) was prepared by mixing 50 wt% of dimethacry-
late based resin matrix (bisGMA/TEGDMA = 60/40 or
UDMA/PMMA = 80/20 wt/wt respectively, with 0.7 wt% CQ
and 0.7 wt% DMAEMA as a photoinitiator system) to 50 wt% of
various weight fractions of glass fiber/particulate filler (0:50,
10:40, 20:30, 30:20, 40:10, 50:0 wt%, respectively) (Table 1). The
discontinuous E-glass fibers (as-received silanized) having
length scale of 200–300 ␮m (Ø6 ␮m), so-called microfibers
and silaned BaAlSiO2 filler particles (Ø7 ␮m) were added
gradually to the resin matrix. The average aspect ratio of
fibers was 41. The mixing was carried out by using a high
speed mixing machine for 2 min (Hauschild Speed Mixer
DAC 400.1, 3500 rpm). Temperatures during the mixing were
monitored by an infrared thermometer.
2.3. Flexural strength
Three-point bending test specimens (2 × 2 × 25 mm3 ) were
made from each tested composite. Bar-shaped specimens
were made in a half-split stainless steel mold between trans-
parent Mylar sheets. Polymerization of the composite was
done using a hand light-curing unit (Elipar S10, 3 M ESPE,
600 d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 3 4 ( 2 0 1 8 ) 598–606
Table 1 – Classification of the experimental flowable SFRC test groups used in the study according to their fiber weight
content.
Experimental groups Micro glass fiber (wt%)
A (control) 0 50
B 10
C 20
D 30
E 40
F 50
St. Paul, MN, USA) for 20 s in five separate overlapping por-
tions from both sides of the metal mold. The wavelength of
the light was between 430 and 480 nm and light intensity
was 1600 mW/cm2 . The specimens from each group (n = 8)
were stored dry at 37 ◦ C temperature for 48 h before testing.
Three-point bending test was conducted according to the ISO
4049 (test span: 20 mm, cross-head speed: 1 mm/min, inden-
ter: 2 mm diameter). All specimens were loaded in material
testing machine (model LRX, Lloyd Instrument Ltd, Fareham,
England) and the load-deflection curves were recorded with
PC-computer software (Nexygen 4.0, Lloyd Instruments Ltd,
Fareham, England).
Flexural strength (o’f ) was calculated from the following
formula (ISO 1992):
o’f = 3Fm I/2bh2
where Fm is the applied load (N) at the highest point of load-
deflection curve, I is the span length (20 mm), b is the width of
test specimens and h is the thickness of test specimens.
2.4. Fracture toughness
Single-edge-notched-beam specimens (2.5 × 5 × 25 mm3 )
according to adapted ISO 20795-2 standard method (ASTM
2005) were prepared to determine the fracture toughness.
Custom-made stainless steel split mold was used, which
enabled specimen’s removal without force. Accurately
designed slot was fabricated centrally in the mold extending
until its mid-height, which enabled central location of the
notch and optimization of the crack length (x) to be half of
specimen’s height. The composite material was inserted into
the mold placed over a Mylar-strip-covered glass slide in
one increment. Before polymerization a sharp and centrally
located crack was produced by inserting a straight edged
steel blade into the prefabricated slot. Polymerization of the
composite was carried out for 20 s in five separate overlapping
portions. The upper side of the mold was covered with Mylar
strip and glass slide from both sides of the blade, before
being exposed to the polymerization light. Upon the removal
from the mold, each specimen was polymerized also on the
opposite side. The specimens from each group (n = 8) were
stored dry at 37 ◦ C temperature for 48 h before testing. The
specimens were tested in three-point bending mode, in a
universal material testing machine at a crosshead speed of
1.0 mm/min.
The fracture toughness was calculated using the Equa-
tion: Kmax = [P L/B W3/2] f(x), where: f(x) = 3/2 × 1/2 [1.99 − x
(1 − x) (2.15 − 3.93x + 2.7 × 2)]/2(1 + 2x) (1 − x)3/2 and 0 < x < 1
with x = a/W. Here P is the maximum load in kilonewton (kN),
L is the span length (2 cm), B is the specimen thickness in cen-
Resin matrix (wt%) Particulate fillers (wt%)
50
50 40
50 30
50 20
50 10
50 0
Fig. 1 – Schematic drawing of core-crown restoration and
the compression load test setup.
timeters (cm), W is the specimen width (depth) in cm, x is
a geometrical function dependent on a/W and a is the crack
length in cm.
Work of fracture (the energy required to fracture the
specimen) was calculated from the area under the load-
displacement curve of single-edge-notched-beam specimens
and reported in unit of Ncm.
2.5. Core and crown fabrication
Full crown preparation of lower 1st molar was prepared on
Frasaco acrylic tooth (Frasaco GmbH, Tettnang, Germany).
Preparation was made with 2 mm of axial and occlusal reduc-
tion. A transparent template matrix of an ideally contoured
lower 1st molar crown and the prepared tooth structure (core)
was used to aid standardized core-crown restorations con-
struction. Core-crown restorations were constructed via three
different approaches (6 groups) in order to simulate clinical
techniques (Fig. 1). Two commercial composite resins were
used in this study, G-aenial Anterior and everX Posterior
(Table 2).
Approach A: group (control) made only from PFC (G-aenial
Anterior) resin.
Approach B: groups made with experimental flowable
SFRCs (10, 20, 30, 40 wt% microfiber) as core materials and
covered by 2 mm surface layer of PFC resin.
Approach C: group made with commercial SFRC resin
(everX Posterior) as core and covered by 2 mm surface layer
of PFC resin.
Human mandibular 1st molars of similar dimensions
(±0.2 mm) (n = 6), which were extracted for periodontal rea-
sons and free of caries, restorations, abrasions and fractures
were used also as control group.
The crown restorations of each group (n = 6) were poly-
merized with hand-light curing unit (Elipar S10, 3M ESPE,
St. Paul, MN, USA) for 40 s for increment (wavelength of the
light was between 430 and 480 nm and light intensity was
1600 mW/cm2 ). Subsequently after polymerization, the crown
 d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 3 4 ( 2 0 1 8 ) 598–606
Table 2 – The commercial composite resins used and their composition.
Brand Manufacturer Type
G-aenial Anterior GC Corp, Tokyo, Japan Hybrid microfilled
everX Posteior GC Corp, Tokyo, Japan Short fiber reinforced
PMMA, polymethylmethacrylate; Bis-GMA, bisphenol-A-glycidyl dimethacrylate; TEGDMA, triethylene glycol dimethacrylate; UDMA, urethane
dimethacrylate; wt%, weight percentage.
was fixed to the flat metal base of testing device using double
side tape before statically loaded (spherical Ø5 mm) (Fig. 1).
The static compressive fracture test was performed using a
universal testing machine (model LRX, Lloyd Instruments Ltd.,
Fareham, UK) at a speed of 1 mm/min, and data were recorded
using PC software (Nexygen Lloyd Instruments Ltd.). The load-
ing event was registered until restoration fracture. Failure
patterns of each loaded restorations were visually analyzed
and categorized into three typical fracture patterns: crushing,
delamination and ductile.
2.6. Statistical analysis
The data were statistically analyzed with SPSS version 23
(SPSS, IBM Corp) using analysis of variance (ANOVA) at the
P < 0.05 significance level followed by a Tukey HSD post hoc
test to determine the differences between the groups.
3. Results
3.1. Flexural strength and fracture toughness
The mean values of flexural strength and fracture toughness,
for tested experimental composite materials with standard
deviations (SD) are summarized in Figs. 2 and 3. ANOVA
revealed that fraction of glass fiber/filler had significant effect
(p < 0.05) on the fracture toughness and flexural strength of
the Exp-SFRC with both monomer systems. Exp-SFRC (50 wt%
microfiber) had significantly higher mechanical performance
of fracture toughness (2.6 MPam1/2 ) and flexural strength
(175.5 MPa) (p < 0.05) compared to non-fiber reinforced mate-
rial (1.3 MPam1/2 , 123 MPa). No statistical (p > 0.05) significance
difference in fracture toughness was recorded between the
two methacrylate resin formulations (Fig. 3). On the other
hand, groups made of UDMA/PMMA resin matrix showed bet-
ter performance in flexural strength (p < 0.05) (Fig. 2).
The total energy release (work of fracture) of Exp-SFRCs
and non-fiber reinforced materials was calculated from the
area under the load-displacement curves. The contribution of
microfiber plays a major role in increasing the work of frac-
ture energy of Exp-SFRCs. A pronounced increase in the energy
of fracture (from preload to break) as the percentage of glass
microfiber was increased.
SEM analysis of the tested Single-edge-notched-beam
specimens showed protruded (pullout) fiber ends at fracture
surface and microfibers orientation in polymer matrix (Fig. 4).
In addition, it presented the good adhesion and wettability of
microfibers with the resin matrix.
601
Composition
UDMA, dimethacrylate co-monomers, prepolymrized
silica and strontium fluoride containing fillers 76 wt%
Bis-GMA, PMMA, TEGDMA, discontinuous E-glass fiber
8.6 wt%, Barium glass fillers 67.7 wt%
3.2. Core-crown restorations
No statistical (p > 0.05) significance difference in fracture
resistance was recorded between tested crown restorations
(Fig. 5). However, failure mode analysis revealed that fracture
toughness value of the substructure (core material) directly
influence the failure mode (Fig. 6). Fracture patterns were ana-
lyzed visually, and showed three various types of fracture
patterns distributed according to the type of core material:
fatal crushing, delamination and ductile fracture (Fig. 6).
Crown specimens having only PFC with no fiber reinforce-
ment showed a fatal crushing fracture pattern. All of the crown
specimens that have reinforced core material of Exp-SFRC (10
and 20 wt% microfiber) revealed delaminating of PFC from the
SFRC substructure layer. While in crown specimens that have
core materials of Exp-SFRC (30 and 40 wt% microfiber) and
commercial short fiber composite (everX Posterior) showed
delamination and ductile (cracking) fracture patterns, which
were similar to natural crown fracture patterns (Fig. 6).
4. Discussion
Reports on the properties of currently used flowable PFCs
are thoroughly documented by several authors [20–22]. In
general, the fracture toughness of all commercial flowable
PFCs is well below 1.3 MPa m1/2 , and flexural strength below
160 MPa [20–22]. Flowability of dental composite allows for
extrusion through nozzle, simplifying placement and over-
coming difficulties, namely technique sensitivity, time and
expense. Based on this, the present study used microfibers as
fillers in 200–300 ␮m length to maintain the resin flowability.
The results of this study support the hypothesis that
microfibers can still have a significant effect on flexural
strength and fracture toughness together with the easy to use
properties of a flowable material.
The flowable Exp-SFRC demonstrated enhanced resistance
capability to crack propagation, that is fracture toughness and
flexural strength, which could be explained by the fiber and
matrix related properties of the material. Fibers in this flow-
able fibrous composite material are equal to the critical fiber
length and thus, could efficiently accept the stress transferred
from the matrix. This is in accordance with Shouha et al.,
study, which showed superior flexural properties of short fiber
reinforced flowable composite compared to conventional par-
ticulate filler composites [23].
Aspect ratio, critical fiber length, fiber loading and fiber ori-
entation are the main factors that could improve or impair
the mechanical properties of SFRC [18]. Aspect ratio is the
fiber length to fiber diameter ratio (l/d). It affects the tensile
602 d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 3 4 ( 2 0 1 8 ) 598–606

200.0
UDMA+PMMA
bisGMA+TEGDMA

160.0

Flexural strength (MPa)

120.0

80.0

40.0

0.0
A 0% B 10% C 20% D 30% E 40% F 50%
Fiber wt%

UDMA 123 (15) 132 (11) 146 (8) 149 (18) 171 (17) 175 (13)
bisGMA 106 (8) 117 (19) 136 (15) 137 (16) 153 (15) 158 (15)
P-value p=0.622 p=0.999 p=0.988

Fig. 2 – Bar graph illustrating means flexural strength (MPa) and standard deviation (SD). Groups joined by a horizontal line
are not significantly difference (p > 0.05). p = 0.988.

3.5
UDMA+PMMA bisGMA+TEGDMA

3
Fracture toughness (MPam½)

2.5

1.5

0.5

0
A 0% B 10% C 20% D 30% E 40% F 50%
Fiber wt%

UDMA 1.3 (0.2) 1.9 (0.4) 2 (0.5) 2.4 (0.5) 2.6 (0.4) 2.6 (0.4)
bisGMA 1.3 (0.2) 1.6 (0.1) 2 (0.2) 2.4 (0.1) 2.6 (0.1) 2.6 (0.2)
P-value p=0.487 p=0.487

Fig. 3 – Bar graph illustrating means fracture toughness (KIC ) and standard deviation (SD). Groups joined by a horizontal line
are not significantly difference (p > 0.05).

strength, flexural modulus and the reinforcing efficiency of between the fibers and polymer matrix increase the criti-
the FRC [19]. Microfibers used in this study have aspect ratio cal fiber length [24]. Sufficient adhesion between fiber and
of more than 30. In order for a fiber to act as an effective matrix provides good load transfer between the two ingredi-
reinforcement for polymers, stress transfer from the poly- ents, which ensures that the load is transferred to the stronger
mer matrix to the fibers is essential [11,19]. This is achieved fiber and this is how the fiber actually works as reinforce-
by having a fiber length equal to or greater than the critical ment. However, if the adhesion is not strong and if any voids
fiber length and the given fiber aspect ratio in range of 30–94 appear between the fiber and the matrix, these voids may
[19]. It has been also concluded that for advanced FRCs, the act as initial fracture sites in the matrix and facilitate the
critical fiber length could be as much as 50 times the diam- breakdown of the material. That is why adhesion between
eter of the fiber. The diameter of glass fibers used in this the fibers and the resin matrix is significant for the mechani-
study is 6 ␮m and the critical fiber length should be, there- cal performance and the longevity of restorations [19]. Earlier
fore, around 300 ␮m. Deteriorated or initially poor adhesion formulations of SFRCs (Alert, Jeneric/Pentron; Nulite F, NSI
 d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 3 4 ( 2 0 1 8 ) 598–606 603

Fig. 4 – SEM photomircographs of fracture surface of the experimental flowable SFRC single-edge-notched-beam specimen
(×25 magnification; scale bar = 1 mm) showing pull-out of fibers (A). Random orientation of microfibers (×1000
magnification; scale bar = 10 ␮m) in the resin matrix of the flowable composite (B).

1600

1400

1200

1000
Load (N)

800

600

400

200

0
Gaenial A (PFC) PFC+10% SFRC PFC+20% SFRC PFC+30% SFRC PFC+40% SFRC PFC+everX Teeth

Mean 936 1051 993 994 946 1088 1164

SD 289 189 214 62 156 350 350

Fig. 5 – Compressive load bearing capacity of the crown-shaped specimens and standard deviation (SD). PFC refers to
particulate filler composite used as surface layer. SFRC refers to experimental flowable short fiber composite which was
used as core material. No statistical significance difference was recorded between tested groups (p = 0.829).

Ducle fracture Delaminaon Crushing

100

80

60
%

40

20

0
Gaenial A 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 % everX Teeth
Posterior
Core material

Fig. 6 – Percentage of various fracture patterns of the crown-shaped specimens plotted against to the type of the core
material after the compression load test.
604 d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 3 4 ( 2 0 1 8 ) 598–606
dental) were already commercialized in the late 1990s as
packable composites. Although they exhibited acceptable
mechanical properties, clinical problems were encountered
concerning surface roughness and wear resistance [25,26]. In
addition, a medium-term clinical study by van Dijken et al.,
revealed a high failure rate for one of these SFRCs (Nulite
F) due to secondary decay and bulk fracture [26]. Alert has
fiber length in micrometer scale (20–60 ␮m) and diameter of
7 ␮m, which is well below the critical fiber length [27]. This
explained the difference in fracture toughness values between
Alert (1.7 MPam1/2 ) and the flowable Exp-SFRC (2.6 MPam1/2 )
resin [27].
In this Exp-SFRC microfibers were exceptionally well wet-
ted with the resin (Fig. 4B) and that the adhesion was may be
better than with previously used fiber systems (everX Poste-
rior). The better adhesion of the fibers most likely explained
the good reinforcing effect although the aspect ratio was lower
than that of everX Posterior. The toughening mechanisms pro-
vided by the microfibers are result of their ability to deflect
crack propagation, to bridge, resist the opening and propaga-
tion of the crack, consequently inducing a closure force on
the crack [28]. Recent review article by Vallittu showed failure
types of SFRC composite including cracking of the polymer
matrix between fibers, deboning of the fiber and fracture of
fiber [19].
The fracture toughness of a material is a measure of how
well that material hinders the progress of a crack or flaw under
load. Fiber impedes the extension of a crack and develops
interlocking bridges behind the progressing crack dissipat-
ing energy by fiber pullout resulting in graceful rather than
catastrophic failure (Fig. 4A). This might be due to the random
orientation of microfibers in resin matrix and forming fiber
network (Fig. 4B), which seemed to have enhanced the abil-
ity of the material to resist the fracture propagation, as well
as to reduce the stress intensity at the crack tip from which a
crack propagates in an unstable manner. As a consequence, an
increase work of fracture energy and fracture toughness can
be expected. Interestingly, addition of microfibers into resin
matrix and forming fiber network did not effect on the flowa-
bility of the material. To authors’ knowledge, this type of fiber
reinforcing system is not well documented in the literature.
Experimental SFRC made of UDMA/PMMA resin matrix
showed slightly better performance in flexural strength in
comparison with bisGMA/TEGDMA resin matrix (Fig. 2). Which
could be due differences between polymer matrices of pure
thermoset and semi-IPN. The linear polymer chains of PMMA
in the cross-linked matrix of UDMA plasticize the polymer
matrix to some extend and increases the flexural strength of
composite resin [29].
The crown restorations in this study were designed to eval-
uate the failure mode and load-bearing capacity of mandibular
first molar restored with biomimetic approach for the fab-
rication of direct composite overlay. This design reproduced
the scenario of major loss of tooth structure. In this series an
attempt was made by using experimental flowable SFRCs as
bulk core material under surface layer of particulate filler com-
posite resin, i.e. biomimetic composite restorations, in order
to emulate a more natural fracture behavior of composite
resin restorations. Crown specimens having only particulate
filler composite with no fiber reinforcement showed a fatal
crushing fracture pattern. It can be clearly seen that the brit-
tleness of the PFC caused the brittle fatal fracture. On the
other hand, all of the crown specimens that have reinforced
core material of Exp-SFRC (10 and 20 wt% microfiber) revealed
delaminating of PFC from the SFRC substructure layer. While
crown specimens fabricated of core materials of Exp-SFRC (30
and 40 wt% microfiber) and commercial short fiber composite
(everX Posterior) showed delamination and ductile (cracking)
fracture patterns, which retains the original shape of the
crown restoration despite the occurrence of multiple cracks.
Interestingly, these were similar to natural crown fracture pat-
terns (Fig. 6).
Results indicated that SFRC substructure supports the PFC
layer and serve as a crack prevention and redirection layer.
Previous studies demonstrated that mechanism of arresting
the crack propagation is greatly influenced by the distance
between the SFRC substructure and the surface where the
stress initiates [30,31]. Thus, highly important is how thick
SFRC and PFC layers are applied. In vitro was observed that
optimal thickness of the veneering PFC composite over the
SFRC substructure is between 1–1.5 mm [30,31].
The contemporary biomimetic restorative approach uses
only three material properties, namely flexural strength, elas-
tic modulus and thermal expansion coefficient, in order to
select restorative materials to replace lost tooth tissue [6,7].
Nevertheless, the results of the present study clearly shows
that fracture toughness is of paramount importance, since
this property strongly influences the fracture behavior of den-
tal materials in general and dental restorations in particular.
Especially, biomimetic restorations fabricated with a dentine-
replacing flowable SFRC or commercial SFRC with a fracture
toughness close to that of dentine, were able to mimic a
more natural fracture behavior. Several earlier studies also
revealed that biomimetic or bilayered restorations made of
SFRC with a dentine-like fracture toughness exhibited a nat-
ural failure behavior and less catastrophic failures [16,31–37].
Therefore the authors advocate including fracture toughness
as one of the major material properties, besides flexural
strength, elastic modulus and thermal expansion coefficient,
for the selection of tooth tissue-replacing materials from a
biomimetic point-of-view.
The fracture resistance values determined by the vari-
ous investigators were recorded under different measurement
criteria. These criteria were either initial cracking that was
interpreted as crack development or a reduction in the load
by an absolute or relative amount [36,37]. For this study, the
maximum static force on the final fracture was determined.
Stress applied to the teeth and dental restorations is generally
low and repetitive rather than being isolated and impactive
in nature. However, because of a linear relationship between
fatigue and static loading, the compressive static test also
gives valuable information concerning the fracture behavior
and load-bearing capacity [37].
The alteration of diameter of the loading tip i.e. ball size
changes the position of load applications, modifying the con-
centration of tension patterns [38]. Habekost et al., showed
that force required to cause fracture with 10 mm diameter ball
was greater than with the 3 mm diameter ball [38]. In this study
5 mm ball size was select to fit the dimension of our crown
 d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 3 4 ( 2 0 1 8 ) 598–606
restorations. Further research is needed for detailed informa-
tion on this flowable SFRC material and its influence on many
clinical applications.
5. Conclusion
Based on the results of the present study, one could conclude
that short glass fibers can significantly reinforce flowable com-
posite resin and the fracture toughness value of SFRC core
material has prior importance, as it influences the failure
mode and the crack arresting mechanism.
Acknowledgments
Testing materials were provided by the manufacturing com-
panies, which is greatly appreciated. This study belongs to the
research activity of BioCity Turku Biomaterials Research Pro-
gram (www.biomaterials.utu.fi) and it was supported by Stick
Tech LTD — Member of the GC Group.
references
[1] Fennis WM, Kuijs RH, Roeters FJ, Creugers NH, Kreulen CM.
Randomized control trial of composite cuspal restorations:
five-year results. J Dent Res 2014;93:36–41.
[2] Manhart J, Chen H, Hamm G, Hickel R. Buonocore Memorial
Lecture. Review of the clinical survival of direct and indirect
restorations in posterior teeth of the permanent dentition.
Oper Dent 2004;29:481–508.
[3] Wilder AD, May KN, Bayne SC, Taylor DF, Leinfelder KF.
Seventeen-year clinical study of ultraviolet-cured posterior
composite Class I and II restorations. J Esthet Dent
1999;11:135–42.
[4] van Dijken JW, Lindberg A. A 15-year randomized controlled
study of a reduced shrinkage stress resin composite. Dent
Mater 2015;31:1150–8.
[5] Craig RG, editor. Restorative dental materials. 10th ed. St.
Louis, MO: Mosby Publishing Co; 1997.
[6] Magne P, Belser U. Understanding the intact tooth and the
biomimetic principle. In: Magne P, Belser U, editors. Bonded
porcelain restorations in the anterior dentition: a
biomimetic approach. Chicago: Quintessence Publishing Co;
2002. p. 23–55.
[7] Magne P. Composite resins and bonded porcelain: the
postamalgam era? J Calif Dent Assoc 2006;34:135–47.
[8] Manhart J, Kunzelmann KH, Chen HY, Hickel R. Mechanical
properties and wear behavior of light-cured packable
composite resins. Dent Mater 2000;16:33–40.
[9] Kim KH, Okuno O. Microfracture behaviour of composite
resins containing irregular-shaped fillers. J Oral Rehabil
2002;29:1153–9.
[10] Ruddell DE, Maloney MM, Thompson JY. Effect of novel filler
particles on the mechanical and wear properties of dental
composites. Dent Mater 2002;18:72–80.
[11] Garoushi S, Vallittu PK, Lassila LVJ. Short glass fiber
reinforced restorative composite resin with
semi-interpenetrating polymer network matrix. Dent Mater
2007;23:1356–62.
[12] Garoushi S, Tanner J, Vallittu PK, Lassila LVJ. Preliminary
clinical evaluation of short fiber-reinforced composite resin
in posterior teeth: 12-months report. Open Dent J
2012;6:41–5.
605
[13] Garoushi S, Säilynoja E, Vallittu P, Lassila L. Physical
properties and depth of cure of a new short fiber reinforced
composite. Dent Mater 2013;29:835–41.
[14] Lassila L, Garoushi S, Vallittu PK, Säilynoja E. Mechanical
properties of fiber reinforced restorative composite with two
distinguished fiber length distribution. J Mech Behav Biomed
Mater 2016;60:331–8.
[15] Garoushi S, Vallittu PK, Watts DC, Lassila LVJ. Polymerization
shrinkage of experimental short glass fiber reinforced
composite with semi-inter penetrating polymer network
matrix. Dent Mater 2008;24:211–5.
[16] Garoushi S, Hatem M, Lassila L, Vallittu PK. The effect of
short fiber composite base on microleakage and load
bearing capacity of posterior restorations. Acta Biomater
Odontol Scand 2015;1:6–12.
[17] Bijelic-Donova J, Garoushi S, Vallittu PK, Lassila LVJ.
Mechanical properties, fracture resistance, and fatigue
limits of short fiber reinforced dental composite resin. J
Prosthet Dent 2016;115:95–102.
[18] Bijelic-Donova J, Garoushi S, Lassila L, Keulemans F, Vallittu
PK. Mechanical and structural characterization of
discontinuous fiber-reinforced dental resin composite. J
Dent 2016;52:70–8.
[19] Vallittu PK. High-aspect ratio fillers: fiber-reinforced
composites and their anisotropic properties. Dent Mater
2015;31:1–7.
[20] Leprince JG, Palin WM, Vanacker J, Sabbagh J, Devaux J,
Leloup G. Physico-mechanical characteristics of
commercially available bulk-fill composites. J Dent
2014;42:993–1000.
[21] Bonilla ED, Yashar M, Caputo AA. Fracture toughness of nine
flowable resin composites. J Prosthet Dent 2003;89:261–7.
[22] St-Georges AJ, Swift EJ, Thompson JY, Heymann HO.
Irradiance effects on the mechanical properties of universal
hybrid and flowable hybrid resin composites. Dent Mater
2003;19:406–13.
[23] Shouha P, Swain M, Ellakwa A. The effect of fiber aspect
ratio and volume loading on the flexural properties of
flowable dental composite. Dent Mater 2014;30:1234–44.
[24] Karacaer Ö, Polat TN, Tezvergil A, Lassila LVJ, Vallittu PK.
The effect of length and concentration of glass fibers on the
mechanical properties of an injection- and a
compression-molded denture base polymer. J Prosthet Dent
2003;90:385–93.
[25] Fagundes TC, Barata TJ, Carvalho CA, Franco EB, van Dijken
JW, Navarro MF. Clinical evaluation of two packable posterior
composites: a five-year follow-up. J Am Dent Assoc
2009;140:447–54.
[26] van Dijken JW, Sunnegardh-Gronberg K. Fiber-reinforced
packable resin composites in Class II cavities. J Dent
2006;34:763–9.
[27] Garoushi S, Vallittu PK, Lassila L. Mechanical properties and
wear of five commercial fibre-reinforced filling materials.
Chin J Dent Res 2017;20:137–43.
[28] Kim SH, Watts DC. Effect of glass-fiber reinforcement and
water storage on fracture toughness (KIC) of polymer-based
provisional crown and FPD material. Int J Prosthodont
2004;17:318–22.
[29] Lastumäki TM, Lassila LV, Vallittu PK. The
semi-interpenetrating polymer network matrix of
fiber-reinforced composite and its effect on the surface
adhesive properties. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2003;14:803–9.
[30] Garoushi S, Vallittu PK, Lassila LV. Use of short
fiber-reinforced composite with semi-interpenetrating
polymer network matrix in fixed partial dentures. J Dent
2007;35:403–8.
[31] Keulemans F, Lassila LVJ, Garoushi S, Vallittu PK, Kleverlaan
CJ, Feilzer AJ. The influence of framework design on the
606 d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 3 4 ( 2 0 1 8 ) 598–606
load-bearing capacity of laboratory-made inlay-retained
fibre-reinforced composite fixed dental prostheses. J
Biomech 2009;42:844–9.
[32] Garoushi S, Lassila LVJ, Vallittu PK. Fiber-reinforced
composite substructure: load bearing capacity of an onlay
restoration. Acta Odontol Scand 2006;64:281–5.
[33] Fráter M, Forster A, Keresztúri M, Braunitzer G, Nagy K.
In vitro fracture resistance of molar teeth restored with a
short fibre-reinforced composite material. J Dent
2014;42:1143–5.
[34] Dere M, Ozcan M, Göhring TN. Marginal quality and fracture
strength of root-canal treated mandibular molars with
overlay restorations after thermocycling and mechanical
loading. J Adhes Dent 2010;12:287–94.
[35] Fennis WM, Tezvergil A, Kuijs RH, Lassila LV, Kreulen CM,
Creugers NH, et al. In vitro fracture resistance of fiber
reinforced cusp-replacing composite restorations. Dent
Mater 2005;21:565–72.
[36] Keulemans F, Van Dalen A, Kleverlaan CJ, Feilzer AJ. Static
and dynamic failure load of fiber-reinforced composite and
particulate filler composite cantilever resin-bonded fixed
dental prostheses. J Adhes Dent 2010;12:207–14.
[37] Garoushi S, Lassila LVJ, Tezvergil A, Vallittu PK. Static and
fatigue compression test for particulate filler composite
resin with fiber-reinforced composite substructure. Dent
Mater 2007;23:17–23.
[38] Habeksot LV, Camacho GB, Pinto MB, Demarco FF. Fracture
resistance of premolars restored with partial ceramic
restorations and submitted to two different loading stresses.
Oper Dent 2006;31:204–11.