Dental Materials Journal 2012; 31(6): 10391046

Reinforcing effects of different fibers on denture base resin based on the fiber type, concentration, and combination
Sang-Hui YU1, Yoon LEE2, Seunghan OH1, Hye-Won CHO3, Yutaka ODA4 and Ji-Myung BAE1
Department of Dental Biomaterials and Institute of Biomaterials Implant, College of Dentistry, Wonkwang University, 344-2 Shinyong-dong, Iksan 570-749, Korea 2 Department of Dentistry, Wonju College of Medicine, Yonsei University, Wonju 220-701, Korea 3 Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Wonkwang University, 344-2 Shinyong-dong, Iksan 570-749, Korea 4 Department of Dental Materials Science, Tokyo Dental College, 1-2-2 Masago, Mihama-ku, Chiba 261-8502, Japan Corresponding author, Ji-Myung BAE; E-mail: baejimy@wku.ac.kr
1

The aim of this study was to evaluate the reinforcing effects of three types of fibers at various concentrations and in different combinations on flexural properties of denture base resin. Glass (GL), polyaromatic polyamide (PA) and ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (PE) fibers were added to heat-polymerized denture base resin with volume concentrations of 2.6%, 5.3%, and 7.9%, respectively. In addition, hybrid fiber-reinforced composite (FRC) combined with either two or three types of fibers were fabricated. The flexural strength, modulus and toughness of each group were measured with a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 5 mm/min. In the single fiber-reinforced composite groups, the 5.3% GL and 7.9% GL had the highest flexural strength and modulus; 5.3% PE was had the highest toughness. Hybrid FRC such as GL/PE, which showed the highest toughness and the flexural strength, was considered to be useful in preventing denture fractures clinically. Keywords: Hybrid fiber-reinforced composite, Glass fiber, Polyaromatic polyamide fiber, Polyethylene fiber, Denture base resin

INTRODUCTION
Acrylic resin based on polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) is one of the materials routinely used for the fabrication of dentures. PMMA has been the material of choice because of its favorable working characteristics such as easy repair, cost-effectiveness, and stability in the oral environment1-3). However, resin denture bases fabricated with only PMMA may fracture due to impact or fatigue4). Fracture of dentures is commonly seen in prosthodontic practice and is one of the problems yet to be solved5). The most common method of strengthening denture base polymers has been adding reinforcements, such as metal wires and plates, to the denture base polymer6-8). However, metal reinforcing materials are problematic because their bonds with the resin matrix are weak9). In addition, metal is unacceptable clinically because of its low aesthetic properties4). Another method that has been used to reinforce the PMMA is adding various types of fiber reinforcements. A fiber-reinforced composite (FRC) consists of a matrix and the dispersed phase, which includes materials such as fibers10,11). Various types of fibers such as carbon, glass, polyaromatic polyamide (aramid), and ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWP) have been studied12-16). Carbon fibers have been effective in reinforcing denture base resin, but their dark color is unaesthetic, and they are difficult to polish12,14,17). However, glass fibers are aesthetically stable, and improve the flexural and impact strength of denture base resins13,18). As a result, glass fiber is the most commonly used reinforcing fiber with high tensile strength and good aesthetic properties10,13,14). Many studies have reported that the addition of glass fiber
Received Jan 21, 2012: Accepted Aug 31, 2012 doi:10.4012/dmj.2012-020 JOI JST.JSTAGE/dmj/2012-020

in various forms, including woven, unidirectional, and short type, effectively reinforces the flexural strength and flexural modulus of denture base resins2,13,14,19). Aramid fibers have been shown to increase the impact strength of PMMA resin significantly and to enhance the fracture resistance of acrylic resin10,15,20). UHMWP fibers are biocompatible and possess a high degree of stiffness, toughness, and strength11,21,22). The mechanical properties of FRC are dependent upon the composition of the fiber, fiber orientation, the ratio of fiber to resin, and the adhesion between the fiber and resin matrix11,23-25). A hybrid FRC is obtained with two or more different types of fibers in a single matrix and has a better combination of properties than composites containing only a single fiber type10). Thus far, many studies have been conducted to investigate the reinforcing effects depending on fiber types, lengths, and concentrations1,5,20); fiber positions and orientations3,14,19); or pre-impregnation26,27). However, there has not been any study investigating hybrid FRCs in dentistry. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reinforcing effect of the fiber type, concentration, and combination of fibers on the flexural properties of denture base resins. The different fiber types used in this study were glass fiber, polyaromatic polyamide fiber, and UHMWP fiber. We tested different volume concentrations by adding 2.6%, 5.3%, or 7.9% of each fiber to heat-polymerized denture base resin. To evaluate efficacy of different fiber combinations, we added either two or three types of different fiber layers to fabricate a hybrid FRC, and to determine the best combination, their flexural properties were compared with a FRC composed of a single fiber type. The null hypothesis was

1040

Dent Mater J 2012; 31(6): 10391046

polymersPart 1: Denture base polymers), dental stone negative molds (65505 mm) were prepared in denture flasks using a brass metal die28). A mixture of polymer and monomer with a low P/L ratio (4 g/8 g) was applied to the inside of the molds to pre-impregnate the fibers. Then, each prepared fiber layer was dipped into the resin within the mold. For hybrid FRC groups consisting of two types of fibers, the volume concentration of each type of fiber layer was 2.6%, yielding a total fiber concentration of 5.3%. The following six combinations were fabricated: GL/PA, GL/PE, PA/GL, PA/PE, PE/GL, and PE/PA. For hybrid FRC groups consisting of three types of fibers, a 2.6% concentration for each fiber layer resulted in a total volume concentration of 7.9%. Since the toughness was the largest when PE fibers were located at the bottom of the specimen among the two fiber-containing hybrid FRC groups, the following eight combinations with PE fibers at the bottom of the specimen were fabricated: GL/ GL/PE, PA/PA/PE, PA/GL/PE, GL/PA/PE, PE/GL/PE, PE/PA/PE, GL/PE/PE, and PA/PE/PE. After a mixture of polymer and monomer with the P/L ratio (12.9 g/5.7 g) recommended by the manufacturer was allowed to reach the dough stage, it was kneaded for 30 s and packed over the fibers in the mold. The flask was then immersed in a water bath (M-9, MESTRA, Bilbao, Spain). The temperature was raised to 74C, maintained for 2 h and then increased to 100C for 1 h. After the completion of the polymerization cycle, the flask was left to cool for 30 min at room temperature and was then placed under flowing water for 15 min. After deflasking, the thickness of the specimens was reduced to 3.3 mm with a series of abrasive papers (200,

that the reinforcing effects of the three types of fibers on denture base resin were not different regardless of the concentration and/or combination used.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Specimen preparation A heat-polymerized resin (Vertex RS, Dentimax, Zeist, Netherlands) was used as the matrix. Glass fiber (GL; ER 270FW, Hankuk Fiber Co., LTD, Milyang, Korea), polyaromatic polyamide fiber (PA; Kevlar-49, Dupont Co., Inc., DE, U.S.A.), and ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene fiber (PE; P.E., Dong Yang Rope Mfg., Co., LTD, Busan, Korea) were used to reinforce the denture base resin (Table 1). Glass fibers were supplied with epoxy-silane treated state by the manufacturer, while PA and PE were provided without surface treatment. Using the density determination kit (YDK01, Sartorius AG, Goettingen, Germany), the density of each fiber was measured (Table 1). The weight required to make volume percentage of 2.6%, 5.3%, and 7.9% of each fiber in a specimen was calculated using the fiber density, respectively. The weighed fibers were aligned unidirectionally on a glass fabric (Biscor-Tex 13-260, Biscor, West Yorkshire, UK) coated with polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) and fixed by the heat-polymerized denture base resin with a low powder/liquid (P/L) ratio (3 g/9 g). Then, these fibers were cut to a size of 6450 mm. If one layer of fiber sheet was added, the target volume concentration was 2.6%, and if two and three layers were added, the target concentrations were 5.3% and 7.9%, respectively. According to ISO 20795-1:2008 (DentistryBase

Table 1 Fibers used in the study and the measurements of the fiber diameters and densities Fiber Glass Aramid *UHMWP Brand name ER 270FW Kevlar-49 P.E Manufacturer Hankuk Fiber Co., LTD, Milyang, Korea Dupont Co., Inc., DE, U.S.A. Dong Yang Rope Mfg. Co., LTD, Busan, Korea Fiber diameter (den) 2.970.44 1.420.10 3.590.54 Density (g/cm3) 2.210.02 1.280.00 0.950.01

* UHMWP: Ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene

Fig. 1

Schematic diagram of the test specimens used in the study. The specimen was polished to a thickness of 3.3 mm and was cut to a final size of 64 mm10 mm3.3 mm.

Dent Mater J 2012; 31(6): 10391046

400, 600, 800, and 1200 grit) using a grinder-polisher (METASERV, Buehler, Coventry, England). According to ISO 20795-1, the specimens were then cut to the final size of 64103.3 mm using a low-speed saw (ISOMET, Buehler, Lake Bluff, IL, USA) (Fig. 1). As a control group, heat-polymerized denture base resin alone was used. Fifteen specimens were made for each single fiberreinforced composite group and ten specimens were prepared for each hybrid FRC group. Before testing, the specimens were stored for 50 h in a water bath at 37C according to ISO 20795-128). Three-point bending test The flexural strength, flexural modulus, and toughness of each specimen were measured in a three-point bending mode using a universal testing machine (Z020, Zwick, Ulm, Germany) at a crosshead speed of 5 mm/min. The span of the two supports was 50 mm. The flexural strength, modulus, and toughness were calculated by a program (testXpert 11.0, Zwick, Ulm, Germany) in the universal testing machine. The flexural strength () and the flexural modulus (E) were calculated using the following formulas28): =3Fl/2bh2 E=F1l3/4bh3d where F is the maximum load (N) applied at the highest point of the stress-strain curve, l is the span length (mm), b is the width of the test specimen (mm), h is the thickness of the test specimen (mm), and d is the deflection (mm) corresponding to a load F1 at a point in the linear portion of the trace to provide the stiffness value. The toughness corresponds to the area under the stress-strain curve, which was automatically calculated by the program mentioned above. The end of test was determined either by fracture or by the load dropped down 30% from the maximum load11). Failure mode analysis & Scanning electron microscopy The failure mode was categorized into three groups. In group A, both the fibers and resin were completely fractured and divided into two parts. In group B, the fibers or resin were partially fractured. In group C, both the fibers and resin were not fractured (Fig. 2). The longitudinal and cross-sectional views of the specimens were analyzed by scanning electron microscopy (JSM6360, Jeol Ltd., Tokyo, Japan). For a cross-sectional view,

1041

the fractured part of each specimen was sectioned and embedded in acrylic resin (OrthoJet, Lang dental, OH, USA) with the sectioned surface exposed. The surface was then polished with a series of abrasive papers (200, 400, 600, 800, 1200, and 2000 grit) followed by a pan cloth with 5 m aluminum oxide and a suede cloth with 0.3 m aluminum oxide. The diameter of each fiber was measured using Smile View program (Version 2.05, Jeol Ltd.) (Table 1). Statistical analysis The data were analyzed with the SPSS statistical software program (SPSS 12.0; SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). The flexural properties of the control group and four experimental groups were analyzed by oneway analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the Duncans multiple range test at the 95% confidence level to assess the statistical significance.

RESULTS
Flexural strength All of the fibers improved the flexural strength of the control group significantly (p<0.05). In the single fiberreinforced composite groups, the 5.3% GL, 7.9% GL, 5.3% PA, and 5.3% PE showed significantly higher flexural strengths than the other groups (p<0.05) and 5.3% PA was not significantly different from 2.6% PA and 7.9% PA (p>0.05). The flexural strengths of the hybrid FRC with two or three fiber-containing groups were not significantly different from the 5.3% GL and 7.9% GL groups (p>0.05), with the exception of PE/PA/ PE (Fig. 3, Table 2). Flexural modulus The flexural moduli of all of the experimental groups showed significant reinforcing effects compared with the control group (p<0.05). Among the single fiber-reinforced composite groups, the flexural moduli of the 5.3% and

Fig. 2

Classification of failure modes according to the location and the propagation of the fracture lines; A, complete fracture of the overlying denture base resin and fibers; B, partial fracture of the resin or fibers; C, non-fracture.

Fig. 3

Flexural strengths of fiber-reinforced composites (FRCs) with various fiber concentrations and hybrid FRCs consisting of two (total fiber volume 5.3%) or three fibers (total fiber volume 7.9%).

1042

Dent Mater J 2012; 31(6): 10391046

lower than 5.3% and 7.9% GL groups (p<0.05) (Fig. 4, Table 2). Toughness Toughness was significantly increased in all experimental

7.9% GL groups were the highest (p<0.05). In terms of the hybrid FRC with two or three fiber-containing groups, the PA/GL, PE/GL, and PE/PA groups showed no significant differences from the 5.3% and 7.9% GL groups (p>0.05) and the other groups were significantly

Fig. 4

Flexural moduli of fiber-reinforced composites (FRCs) with various fiber concentrations and hybrid FRCs consisting of two (total fiber volume 5.3%) or three fibers (total fiber volume 7.9%).

Fig. 5

Toughness of fiber-reinforced composites (FRCs) with various fiber concentrations and hybrid FRCs consisting of two (total fiber volume 5.3%) or three fibers (total fiber volume 7.9%).

Table 2 Flexural strengths, flexural moduli, and toughness of denture base resins reinforced with three types of fibers in various concentrations and combinations Fiber content 0% 2.6% Fiber orientation Control GL PA PE GL PA PE PA/GL PE/GL GL/PA PE/PA GL/PE PA/PE GL PA PE GL/GL/PE PA/PA/PE PA/GL/PE GL/PA/PE PE/GL/PE PE/PA/PE GL/PE/PE PA/PE/PE Flexural strength (MPa) 99.43.0 a 157.713.6 bc 170.035.9 cde 152.021.0 b 203.821.3 ghij 192.729.0 efg 183.025.6 efg 219.812.0 j 188.021.1 efg 208.023.5 ghij 214.830.1 j 212.223.5 ij 209.714.9 hij 210.217.2 ij 175.436.0 cde 162.120.9 bcd 193.516.5 fghi 212.419.6 ij 182.512.7 ef 205.417.6 ghij 192.111.3 efghi 178.022.2 def 189.819.0 efgh 206.213.1 ghij Flexural modulus (GPa) 2.50.0 a 4.00.2 ghi 3.80.7 defg 3.10.3 b 4.80.2 j 4.00.6 efgh 3.50.4 cd 5.10.3 k 4.40.4 i 4.00.3 fgh 4.40.5 i 4.20.5 hi 4.10.2 ghi 4.60.2 j 3.70.6def 3.20.4 bc 3.90.3 efgh 4.20.5 hi 3.70.3 def 4.10.3 ghi 3.80.2 defg 3.60.3 cde 3.70.2 def 4.20.2 ghi Toughness (Nmm) 422.9849.15 a 664.2771.72 ab 1,052.69319.30 cd 3,184.85258.53 h 1,178.96156.12 cde 1,731.82487.34 f 4,007.79403.27 jkl 1,262.61108.46 de 869.39116.37 bc 1,519.93306.55 ef 1,521.33375.74 ef 4,223.46383.22 k 3,676.12385.44 ij 1,518.87272.13 ef 2,285.41690.19 g 3,327.31302.82 hi 3,673.07317.26 ij 4,352.42289.92 k 4,000.17278.28 jkl 4,245.22314.25 k 4,065.22220.38 jkl 3,815.80552.55 jk 4,382.72219.22 k 4,181.41533.93 kl

5.3%

7.9%

The superscripts with the same letters in the same column were not significantly different by one-way ANOVA and Duncans multiple range test at =0.05.

Dent Mater J 2012; 31(6): 10391046

groups with fiber reinforcement compared with the control group (p<0.05). In the single fiber-reinforced composite groups, GL and PA tended to increase as the fiber content increased, while PE demonstrated the highest toughness at 5.3% (p<0.05). Unlike the flexural strength and modulus, PA and PE showed higher toughness than GL at the same fiber content,

1043

and PE demonstrated the highest toughness (p<0.05). In hybrid FRC with two fiber-containing groups, GL/PE showed no significant difference from the 5.3% PE group (p>0.05) and the groups with PE fiber at the bottom showed higher toughness (p<0.05). The toughness of all three fiber-containing hybrid FRC groups were not significantly different from the 5.3% PE group (p>0.05),

Fig. 6

Scanning electron microscopic images of the fractured aspects of a specimen, the longitudinal views are in the left column, cross-sectional views at 30 magnification are in the middle column, and their magnified views at 400 are in the right column. Among the single fiber-reinforced composites, GL (a), (b), (c) and PA (d), (e), (f) show complete fracture and PE (g), (h), (i) exhibits non-fracture. White fracture lines are observed at (b), (c), (e), (f). For the two fiber-containing hybrid FRCs, GL/PE (j), (k), (l) represents partial fracture. Among the three fiber-containing hybrid FRCs, PA/PA/PE (m), (n), (o) shows non-fracture. For fiber content, (a), (b), (d), (e), (g), (h) contain 7.9 vol% and (c), (f), (i) have 5.3 vol% fibers.

1044

Dent Mater J 2012; 31(6): 10391046

Table 3 Failure modes of the specimens categorized according to the location and the propagation of fracture line Group Single fiber Failure mode GL PA PE Two fiber-combination Three fiber-combination

GL PA PA GL PE PE GL PA PA PE GL PE GL PA 2.6 5.3 7.9 2.6 5.3 7.9 2.6 5.3 7.9 GL GL PA PA PE PE GL PA GL PA GL PA PE PE PE PE PE PE PE PE PE PE % % % % % % % % % 15 13 12 12 10 2 3 3 5 8 4 3 15 2 13 15 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 1 9 1 9 6 4 10 10 1 9 10

*A: Complete fracture *B: Partial fracture *C: Non-fracture

*The fracture lines A, B, and C were described in Fig. 2.

except for the GL/GL/PE group (Fig. 5, Table 2). Failure mode analysis & Scanning electron microscopy The failure modes of all specimens are listed in Table 3. The GL group showed mostly complete fractures and few partial fractures; PA group demonstrated mostly complete fractures and few partial and non-fractures; PE group showed only partial and non-fractures. With increasing fiber contents, the failure mode tended to change from complete fracture to non-fracture. In the two fiber-containing hybrid FRC groups, the combination with PE showed only partial fractures, while those without PE showed only complete fractures. Three fiber-containing hybrid FRC groups showed mostly nonfractures and some partial fractures (Fig. 6).

DISCUSSION
In this study, glass fiber, aramid fiber, or polyethylene fiber was added to heat-polymerized denture base resin at volume ratios of 2.6%, 5.3% and 7.9%, and the reinforcing effects depending on the fiber type and fiber concentration were evaluated. In addition, by combining two or three different types of these fibers, the reinforcing effects of hybrid FRCs were compared with that of single fiberreinforced composites at the same fiber concentrations of 5.3% and 7.9%. The flexural properties were compared, and the combination with the greatest reinforcing effect was determined. The null hypothesis was rejected because the flexural properties of denture base resin showed significant differences depending on the various combinations and concentrations of the three fibers. Flexural strengths, moduli and toughness were significantly increased in all experimental groups, to which glass, aramid, and UHMWP fibers were added independently or in combinations. In the single fiberreinforced composites, 5.3% GL and 7.9% GL fibers effectively reinforced flexural strengths and flexural moduli, and 5.3% PE fibers showed the highest toughness. In a study by John et al., glass fibers showed the highest flexural strengths among glass fibers, aramid fibers and nylon fibers1). Combining the advantages of each fiber may be

more effective in reinforcing the denture base resin; therefore, hybrid FRCs composed of two or three types of fibers were fabricated. To the best of our knowledge, prior to our current study, there has not been any study reporting the value of hybrid FRCs in dentistry. Hybrid FRCs with PE fibers at the bottom showed dramatically increased toughness, which corresponded to a toughness of approximately 267%361% of that seen in the 5.3% GL and 7.9% GL group. GL/PE and most of three fibercontaining hybrid FRC showed comparable toughness to 5.3% PE. The flexural strengths of most hybrid FRCs containing two or three types of fibers were not significantly different from the 5.3% and 7.9% GL groups. In terms of flexural modulus, most hybrid FRCs showed similar or lower values compared to the 5.3% and 7.9% GL groups. Considering all of the flexural properties, the group that was strongest in all categories was GL/ PE in the two fiber-containing hybrid FRC groups. Most three fiber-containing hybrid FRC groups showed strong flexural properties except for GL/GL/PE and PE/ PA/PE, which showed lower toughness and flexural strength respectively. Many studies have suggested that UHMWP fibers have a shock energy-absorbing capacity and that they increase the impact strength of PMMA16,18,29,30). Although glass fiber is widely used and shows good mechanical properties, its brittleness may be a disadvantage when used alone to reinforce the denture base10). When the load is exerted on the specimens in the three point bending mode, the bottom side becomes the tension side31). Instead of brittle glass fiber, placing the ductile PE fiber that is resistant to tensile force at the tension side would be an effective orientation strategy to increase the flexural properties in hybrid FRCs. Failure mode was also affected by the fiber type, the total fiber concentration, and the use of fiber combinations. For fiber type, it tended to show from complete fractures to non-fractures in the order of GL<PA < PE. Among the single fiber-reinforced composites and hybrid FRCs, none of the specimens containing PE were completely fractured into two pieces. Increase in the fiber concentration also resulted in more non-fractures than complete fractures. Among the different fiber combinations, the three fiber-containing hybrid FRC

Dent Mater J 2012; 31(6): 10391046

showed more non-fractures than two fiber-containing hybrid FRCs, which could in part be due to the total fiber volume. A higher fiber volume such as 7.9% fiber volume in a three fiber combination may be advantageous for preventing denture fractures, thereby resulting in a favorable failure mode compared to 5.3% fiber volume in a two fiber combination. The other reason may be that hybrid FRCs consisting of a combination of all three fiber types were constructed with the ductile PE fibers at the bottom of the specimen, which is the tension side, resulting in an advantageous failure mode for threefiber hybrid FRCs. Dentures often fracture in the middle as a result of fatigue or impact4), and toughness is clinically important to prevent denture fractures11). Unidirectional fibers located perpendicular to the midline of the denture would be useful to prevent midline fractures of the dentures through flexural loading. In spite of this, there have been studies reporting the limitations of unidirectional fibers in three point bending tests, because the load can be applied in only one direction with the universal testing machine, while multi-directional forces are applied on the filling materials or on the fixed partial dentures within the mouth23,32). However, a denture within the mouth is a good model where a flexural load is mainly applied because the patients are instructed to avoid biting with the incisors of the dentures and to do chopping movements with their posterior teeth as much as possible during mastication. Both posterior alveolar ridges correspond to the supports of a three point bending test. The midline of the denture is vulnerable to fracture through the flexural load. Therefore, unlike any of the other prostheses within the mouth, unidirectional fibers perpendicular to the expected midline fracture lines can reinforce the denture most effectively. Nevertheless, other fiber orientations, especially hybrid FRCs with different fiber orientations, still need to be investigated in future studies. Fiber diameter also affects the mechanical properties of FRC. Generally glass fibers with diameters ranging from 10 to 17 m are used for industrial fiber-reinforced plastic materials33). With increasing glass fiber diameter (7, 10, 13, 16, 20, 25, 30 and 45 m), the flexural strengths of FRC of 30 vol% fiber content increased except for the FRC with 45 m diameter fibers33). Water sorption and solubility, which cause dimensional change, are important factors for denture base resin. As the fiber content increased, the dimensional change and water sorption decreased in denture base resin34). Randomly oriented short glass fibers decreased water sorption and solubility of denture base polymer, while the dimensional accuracy was not affected with fiber reinforcement35). The hybrid FRCs consisting of three types of fibers did not have significantly different flexural properties compared to the hybrid FRCs that consisted of two types of fibers. This result may be due to fabrication complexity. As the fiber layers increase, they are more difficult to manipulate, and voids may be formed between fiber layers, subsequently decreasing the mechanical properties. However, it was found to be false with the

1045

SEM images. Figure 6 shows that no voids were formed between each fiber layer and even in hybrid FRC in which two or three different types of fiber sheets were. The other reason could be that the most appropriate fiber concentration to reinforce the denture base resin would be 5.3%. For UHMWP fibers, 5.3% was most effective regarding toughness, flexural strength and modulus. For glass fibers, the flexural strength and modulus of 5.3% was highest and not significantly different from the 7.9% group. The three different types of fibers were combined at various concentrations and in various combinations to determine the most effective factor in reinforcing denture base resin. In terms of fiber type, glass fibers were most effective with respect to the flexural strength and modulus, while polyethylene fibers were most effective with regard to toughness. However, only glass fibers were surface-treated with silane, while there were no surface treatments on the aramid and UHMWP fibers. If aramid and UHMWP fibers had also been surface-treated, the flexural properties of these two fiber-reinforced composites would have increased. Additional studies are required to investigate this topic further. Regarding the fiber concentration, 5.3% volume concentration was considered to be the most effective for the flexural strength, modulus and toughness of all fibers. Regarding fiber combinations, hybrid FRCs could compensate for the brittle nature of the glass fibers due to the increased toughness by combining other ductile fibers such as aramid and UHMWP fibers. The groups with the PE fiber at the bottom such as GL/PE in the two fiber-containing hybrid FRCs and most of the three fibercontaining hybrid FRCs were effective in increasing the toughness. Because these two fiber-containing and three fiber-containing hybrid FRCs were not significantly different in flexural properties, GL/PE that is more convenient to fabricate would be more useful clinically. Therefore, a hybrid FRC with polyethylene fibers located on the tension side of the denture will be very effective in preventing fractures of the denture base. In conclusion, GL/PE, the hybrid FRCs with the highest toughness and flexural strength, are suggested to reinforce the denture base resin most effectively. Further studies should include fabrication of hybrid FRCs with different combinations of fibers and with different fiber orientations.

CONCLUSIONS
Within the limitations of this study, we concluded the following: 1. Addition of glass fibers, aramid fibers, or polyethylene fibers to the denture base resin significantly increased the flexural properties of the control group (p<0.05). 2. In the single fiber-reinforced composite groups, the 5.3% and 7.9% glass fiber groups showed the highest flexural strength and flexural modulus, while the 5.3% polyethylene fiber group had the highest toughness (p<0.05).

1046

Dent Mater J 2012; 31(6): 10391046

of Kevlar-reinforced poly(methyl methacrylate) resin: a preliminary study. Int J Prosthodont 1990; 3: 391-395. Ladizesky NH, Cheng YY, Chow TW, Ward IM. Acrylic resin reinforced with chopped high performance polyethylene fiberproperties and denture construction. Dent Mater 1993; 9: 128-135. Ekstrand K, Ruyter IE, Wellendorf H. Carbon/graphite fiber reinforced poly(methyl methacrylate): properties under dry and wet conditions. J Biomed Mater Res 1987; 21: 10651080. Kanie T, Arikawa H, Fujii K. Impact strength of acrylic denture base resin reinforced with woven glass fiber. Dent Mater J 2003; 22: 30-38. Kanie T, Arikawa H, Fujii K, Ban S. Deformation and flexural properties of denture base polymer reinforced with glass fiber sheet. Dent Mater J 2005; 24: 297-303. Uzun G, Hersek N, Tiner T. Effect of five woven fiber reinforcements on the impact and transverse strength of a denture base resin. J Prosthet Dent 1999; 81: 616-620. Capaccio G, Ward IM. Properties of ultra-high-modulus linear polyethylene. Nature Phys Sci 1973; 243: 143-145. Ward IM. The preparation, structure and properties of ultrahigh modulus flexible polymers. Adv Polymer Sci 1985; 70: 1-70. Bae JM, Kim KN, Hattori M, Hasegawa K, Yoshinari M, Kawada E, Oda Y. The flexural properties of fiber-reinforced composite with light-polymerized polymer matrix. Int J Prothodont 2001; 14: 33-39. Garoushi S, Vallittu PK, Lassila LVJ. Fracture resistance of short, randomly oriented, glass fiber-reinforced composite premolar crowns. Acta Biomater 2007; 3: 779-784. Tanimoto Y, Nishiwaki T, Nemoto K. Numerical failure analysis of glass-fiber-reinforced composites. J Biomed Mater Res A 2004; 68: 107-113. Kanie T, Arikawa H, Fujii K, Ban S. Light-curing reinforcement for denture base resin using a glass fiber cloth pre-impregnated with various urethane oligomers. Dent Mater J 2004; 23: 291-296. Bertassoni LE, Marshall GW, de Souza EM, Rached RN. Effect of pre- and postpolymerization on flexural strength and elastic modulus of impregnated, fiber-reinforced denture base acrylic resins. J Prosthet Dent 2008; 100: 449-457. International Organization for Standard. ISO 207951:2008(E). Dentistry: Base polymersPart 1: Denture base polymers, ISO, Geneva, 2008. Gutteridge DL. The effect of including ultra-high-modulus polyethylene fibre on the impact strength of acrylic resin. Br Dent J 1988; 164: 177-180. Ladizesky NH, Chow TW, Cheng YY. Denture base reinforcement using woven polyethylene fiber. Int J Prosthodont. 1994; 7: 307-314. Powers JM, Sakaguchi RL. In: Powers JM, Sakaguchi RL, editor. Craigs restorative dental materials. 12th ed. St. Louis: Elsevier; 2006. p. 55-69. Bae JM, Kim KN, Hattori M, Hasegawa K, Yoshinari M, Kawada E, Oda Y. Fatigue strengths of particulate filler composites reinforced with fibers. Dent Mater J 2004; 23: 166-174. Obukuro M, Takahashi Y, Shimizu H. Effect of diameter of glass fibers on flexural properties of fiber-reinforced composites. Dent Mater J 2008; 27: 541-548. Cal NE, Hersek N, Sahin E. Water sorption and dimensional changes of denture base polymer reinforced with glass fibers in continuous unidirectional and woven form. Int J Prosthodont 2000; 13: 487-493. Polat TN, Karacaer O, Tezvergil A, Lassila LV, Vallittu PK. Water sorption, solubility and dimensional changes of denture base polymers reinforced with short glass fibers. J Biomater Appl 2003; 17: 321-335.

3. In hybrid FRCs composed of two or three types of fibers, the groups with polyethylene fiber located at the bottom showed the highest toughness (p<0.05). Among them, the hybrid FRCs that showed a high flexural strength and modulus were GL/PE. On the basis of the fiber type, concentration and combination results, GL/PE from the two fiber-containing hybrid FRC group is considered to be the most useful for clinically reinforcing the denture base resin.

16)

17)

18)

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank HanKuk Fiber Co. for supplying the glass fibers and DongYang Rope Mfg. Co. for supplying the polyethylene fibers for this study. This paper was supported by Soongsan Fellowship in Wonkwang University in 2010.

19)

20)

21) 22)

REFERENCES
1) John J, Gangadhar SA, Shah I. Flexural strength of heatpolymerized polymethyl methacrylate denture resin reinforced with glass, aramid, or nylon fibers. J Prosthet Dent 2001; 86: 424-427. 2) Nakamura M, Takahashi H, Hayakawa I. Reinforcement of denture base resin with short-rod glass fiber. Dent Mater J 2007; 26: 733-738. 3) Narva KK, Lassila LV, Vallittu PK. The static strength and modulus of fiber reinforced denture base polymer. Dent Mater 2005; 21: 421-428. 4) Jagger DC, Harrison A, Jandt KD. The reinforcement of dentures. J Oral Rehabil 1999; 26: 185-194. 5) Doan OM, Bolayir G, Keskin S, Doan A, Bek B, Boztu A. The effect of esthetic fibers on impact resistance of a conventional heat-cured denture base resin. Dent Mater J 2007; 26: 232-239. 6) Vallittu PK. Effect of some properties of metal strengtheners on the fracture resistance of acrylic denture base material construction. J Oral Rehabil 1993; 20: 241-248. 7) Vallittu PK, Lassila VP. Reinforcement of acrylic resin denture base material with metal or fiber strengthener. J Oral Rehabil 1992; 19: 225-230. 8) Vallittu PK, Lassila VP. Effect of metal strengtheners surface roughness on fracture resistance of acrylic denture base material. J Oral Rehabil 1992; 19: 385-391. 9) Craig RG, Farah JW, el-Tahawi HM. Three-dimensional photoelastic stress analysis of maxillary complete dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1974; 31:122-129. 10) Callister WD. Materials science and engineering: an introduction. Wiley Asia student edition, 7th ed. Asia: John Wily & Son; 2007. p. 595-607. 11) Kim MJ, Jung WC, Oh S, Hattori M, Yoshinari M, Kawada E, Oda Y, Bae JM. Flexural properties of three kinds of experimental fiber-reinforced composite posts. Dent Mater J 2011; 30: 38-44. 12) 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: 119-121. 13) Vallittu PK. Flexural properties of acrylic polymers reinforced with unidirectional and woven glass fibers. J Prosthet Dent 1999; 81: 318-326. 14) Kanie T, Fujii K, Arikawa H, Inoue K. Flexural properties and impact strength of denture base polymer reinforced with woven glass fibers. Dent Mater 2000; 16: 150-158. 15) Berrong JM, Weed RM, Young JM. Fracture resistance 23)

24)

25)

26)

27)

28)

29)

30)

31)

32)

33)

34)

35)