IADR Abstract Archives
Fiber Orientation and Flexural Strength of TRINIATM
Objectives: To determine fiber orientation and measure flexural strength of TRINIATM, a fiber-reinforced composite material, both before and after it has been cut and re-bonded.
Methods: To observe fiber orientation, TRINIATM (Bicon, Boston, MA) blocks were cut in various angles with respect to the long axis of the as-received blocks, partially dissolved using dimethyl sulfoxide, and fiber orientation was observed using an scanning electron microscope. Rectangular specimens (2mm x 2mm x 25mm) of TRINIATM (n=25) were prepared using a low-speed rotary diamond saw, and were stored in RO water at 23°C for 24 hours. Specimens were subjected to a 4-point-bending test using a universal testing machine (Instron ElectroPuls E-3000, Instron, Norwood, MA) at a speed of 0.5 mm/min. Additional specimens (n=14) with the same dimensions were prepared. These were cut transversely at the midpoint, using a high-speed hand-piece and diamond disk, and bonded together with one of two adhesives: Excite®F; or Adhese® Universal (both from Ivoclar Vivadent, Amherst, NY). These specimens were also subjected to 4-point-bending. Flexural strength and modulus were compared using ANOVA single factor and 3 t-Tests (α=0.05).
Results: TRINIATM displayed densely packed bundles of interwoven fibers running perpendicular to each other. There was a significant difference in flexural strength between un-cut and cut, re-bonded TRINIATM bars (P=6.24×10-30). There were no significant differences observed between the two adhesive re-bonded groups (P=0.439). There was a significant difference observed in modulus between un-cut and cut, re-bonded TRINIATM bars (P=0.0003). There was no significant difference in modulus for the two adhesive re-bonded groups (P=2.822).
Conclusions: TRINIATM appears isotropic with fiber orientation and density uniform regardless of the cutting plane. Repair of TRINIATM by sectioning and use of adhesive only significantly reduces its flexural strength (nearly a 20-fold decrease) and modulus (about a 20% decrease), for both adhesives tested.
Methods: To observe fiber orientation, TRINIATM (Bicon, Boston, MA) blocks were cut in various angles with respect to the long axis of the as-received blocks, partially dissolved using dimethyl sulfoxide, and fiber orientation was observed using an scanning electron microscope. Rectangular specimens (2mm x 2mm x 25mm) of TRINIATM (n=25) were prepared using a low-speed rotary diamond saw, and were stored in RO water at 23°C for 24 hours. Specimens were subjected to a 4-point-bending test using a universal testing machine (Instron ElectroPuls E-3000, Instron, Norwood, MA) at a speed of 0.5 mm/min. Additional specimens (n=14) with the same dimensions were prepared. These were cut transversely at the midpoint, using a high-speed hand-piece and diamond disk, and bonded together with one of two adhesives: Excite®F; or Adhese® Universal (both from Ivoclar Vivadent, Amherst, NY). These specimens were also subjected to 4-point-bending. Flexural strength and modulus were compared using ANOVA single factor and 3 t-Tests (α=0.05).
Results: TRINIATM displayed densely packed bundles of interwoven fibers running perpendicular to each other. There was a significant difference in flexural strength between un-cut and cut, re-bonded TRINIATM bars (P=6.24×10-30). There were no significant differences observed between the two adhesive re-bonded groups (P=0.439). There was a significant difference observed in modulus between un-cut and cut, re-bonded TRINIATM bars (P=0.0003). There was no significant difference in modulus for the two adhesive re-bonded groups (P=2.822).
Conclusions: TRINIATM appears isotropic with fiber orientation and density uniform regardless of the cutting plane. Repair of TRINIATM by sectioning and use of adhesive only significantly reduces its flexural strength (nearly a 20-fold decrease) and modulus (about a 20% decrease), for both adhesives tested.