Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
Volume 89, Issue 6 , Pages 579-588, June 2003

Monotonic flexure and fatigue strength of composites for provisional and definitive restorations

  • Susanne S Scherrer, DMD

      Affiliations

    • Lecturer, Department of Prosthodontics, Geneva, Switzerland
    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests to: Dr Susanne S. Scherrer, School of Dental Medicine, University of Geneva, Department of Prosthodontics, 19, Barthélemy-Menn, 1205 Geneva, Switzerland, Fax: 41-22-382-91-73
    • ,
  • Anselm H.W Wiskott, DMD, MS, MSD, PD

      Affiliations

    • Lecturer, Department of Prosthodontics, Geneva, Switzerland
    • ,
  • Viviana Coto-Hunziker, DMD

      Affiliations

    • Clinical Instructor, Department of Prosthodontics, Geneva, Switzerland
    • ,
  • Urs C Belser, DMD, Prof Dr Med Dent

      Affiliations

    • Professor and Chairman, Department of Prosthodontics, Geneva, Switzerland

Abstract 

Statement of problem

Ordinarily, the mechanical strength of composites is characterized by their flexural strength. Information as to the material’s fatigue strength is seldom provided.

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to compare the flexural strength and the resistance to fatigue loading of composites and an acrylic resin for provisional and definitive restorations.

Material and methods

Artglass, Colombus, and Targis (composites) and Jet, Protemp II, Protemp Garant, and Provipont DC (provisional restorations) were subjected to mechanical tests. Fatigue tests (MPa) (n = 30 specimens/group) were conducted with the rotating-bending cantilever design. Monotonic flexural strength (MPa) (n = 10) was determined in 3-point bending tests. Fatigue resistance was analyzed via the staircase procedure, and flexural strength was examined by use of the 2-parameter Weibull distribution (confidence intervals at 95%).

Results

The mean fatigue resistances (S50) in MPa ± SD were: Targis, 62.1 ± 7.0; Artglass, 58.5 ± 3.7; Colombus, 54.6 ± 6.2; Provipont DC, 29.5 ± 3.2; Protemp II, 23.1 ± 5.3; Jet, 22.8 ± 8.3; Protemp Garant, 19.6 ± 4.6. The flexure strengths (Weibull’s S0) in MPa and their shape parameters (m) were: Colombus, 145.2 (13.1); Targis, 110.3 (7.8); Artglass, 5.9 (5.4); Jet, 150.9 (17.3); Provipont DC, 97.3 (23.8); Protemp II, 57.9 (6.4); Protemp Garant, 54.2 (12.8). The S50 of Targis was significantly higher than that of Colombus but not different from Artglass. In flexion, the S0 of Colombus was significantly higher than that of Artglass and Targis. The S50 ranged between 40% and 60% of the S0 for the composites and between 15% and 30% for the provisional restorative materials.

Conclusions

Correlations between monotonic flexure strength and resistance to fatigue loading were weak. Because fatigue tests are considered more pertinent than monotonic tests as to their predictive value, it is concluded that flexure strength data alone may not provide relevant information for long-term clinical performance. The material’s resistance to fatigue loading should also be determined.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 15.00 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0022-3913(03)00174-4

doi:10.1016/S0022-3913(03)00174-4

Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
Volume 89, Issue 6 , Pages 579-588, June 2003

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution