d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 3 1 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 1022–1029

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

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

Ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene fiber

reinforced dental composites:Effect of fiber surface
treatment on mechanical properties
of the composites

Niloofar Bahramian a , Mohammad Atai b,∗ ,

Mohammad Reza Naimi-Jamal c
a Department of Biomaterials, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
b Iran Polymer and Petrochemical Institute (IPPI), P. O. Box 14965/115, Tehran, Iran
c Department of Chemistry, Iran University of Science and Technology, 16846 Tehran, Iran

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

Article history: Objectives. Poor interfacial adhesion between the fibers and resin matrix in the ultra high
Received 19 December 2014 molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) fiber reinforced composites (FRCs) is the main
Received in revised form drawback of the composites. This study aims to evaluate the effect of corona and silane
28 April 2015 surface treatment of the fibers on the mechanical properties of the UHMWPE FRCs.
Accepted 25 May 2015 Methods. UHMWPE fibers were exposed to corona discharges for different periods of time
(0 s, 5 s, 7 s). The surface characteristics of the UHMWPE fibers were investigated by atten-
uated total reflectance Fourier transformed infrared spectroscopy (ATR-FTIR), atomic force
Keywords: microscopy (AFM), scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and nanoindentation technique.
Fiber reinforced composites (FRCs) The flexural strength and flexural modulus of the FRCs made of the treated fibers were
UHMWPE fibers determined on 2 mm × 2 mm × 25 mm specimens. The fracture toughness (the critical stress
Corona treatment intensity factor, KIC ) of the composites was also evaluated using a three-point single edge
Mechanical properties notch beam (SENB) bending technique. Statistical analysis of the data was performed with
ANOVA and the Tukey’s post-hoc test. The fiber-resin interface and the fracture surface were
investigated using SEM.
Results. The change in the surface mechanical properties and chemistry of the corona treated
UHMWPE fibers were monitored. The fibers exposed to corona for 5 s showed higher sur-
face nanohardness. In the FRCs, the specimens reinforced with 5 s corona treated silanized
fibers showed higher mechanical properties (flexural modulus, flexural strength, and frac-
ture toughness), SEM images revealed a better adhesion between the resin and fibers after
5 s fiber corona treatment and silanization.
Significance. Corona and silane treatment of UHMWPE fibers provide dental FRCs with
improved mechanical properties.
© 2015 Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

∗
Corresponding author. Tel.: +98 2148662446; fax: +98 2144787023.
E-mail address: m.atai@ippi.ac.ir (M. Atai).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2015.05.011
0109-5641/© 2015 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 1 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 1022–1029
1. Introduction
Development of fiber-reinforced composites (FRCs) have
offered dental researchers the possibility of making resin-
bonded, mechanically and esthetically good, and metal-
free restorations for teeth replacement [1,2]. Variety of
dental applications, such as bridges, splints, posts, space-
maintainers, orthodontic retainers, denture bases, clasps and
connectors, and implant prostheses made of FRCs have suc-
cessfully been used in dental practice providing acceptable
mechanical properties [3,4]. In general, in a FRC, fibers are the
main load-carrying members, while the surrounding matrix
acts as a load transfer medium and protects the fibers from
environmental harms [5]. The mechanical properties of FRCs
are dependent upon the mechanical properties of each com-
ponent, quality of impregnation of fiber with resin, adhesion
between the fiber and matrix, quantity of fibers in the matrix
resin, the fiber volume fraction, fiber architecture, and the fiber
type [6,7]. UHMWPE fibers in comparison with other plastic
materials are found to have high impact resistance, toughness,
and tensile strength. The fibers are also light weight, corro-
sion and wear resistant [8,9]. Adhesion of UHMWPE fibers to
the matrix resin is, however, difficult because the UHMWPE is
non-polar in nature with low surface energy [10]. To provide
a good adhesion between the UHMWPE fibers and the poly-
mer matrix, the surface of the fibers has been modified using
different methods such as chemical modification [11], chem-
ical grafting [12], corona discharging [13,14], oxygen plasma
[15–17], high energy laser [18], UV [19], and gamma irradia-
tion [20]. Improving the adhesion performance of UHMWPE
may results in improved dental FRCs. Corona discharge, is a
process by which ionized gas species are formed around an
active high potential electrode due to the electrical current
[21]. In corona treatments of polymers the ionized species
transfer their charge to the polymer surface resulting in
increase in surface energy by introducing polar groups on
the surface. The corona discharge may also change the sur-
face roughness [22]. The process can impart hydrophilicity
to polymer surfaces which may improve the surface affin-
ity and sticking strength with some hydrophilic polymers
[13]. It can also improve the bonding characteristics of mate-
rials by raising the surface energy, wettability, oxygen to
carbon ratio, number of functional polar groups on the sur-
face, and specific surface area leading to enhanced adhesive
capabilities, increase in the delamination force [23,24] and
improvement in the fracture toughness and flexural proper-
ties [25]. Silane treatment, on the other side, is a well-known
method for improvement of surface wettability and interfa-
cial adhesion between matrix resin and OH-covered substrates
[26–28].
Therefore, the combination of these two surface modifica-
tion methods may result in FRCs with improved properties.
This study, consequently, designed to test the hypothesis that
the double surface treatment of UHMWPE fibers improves the
mechanical properties of an experimental dental FRC contain-
ing the fibers as reinforcing phase and Bis-GMA/TEGDMA as
matrix.
1023
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Materials
Materials used in this study are presented in Table 1.
2.2. Methods
2.2.1. Surface corona treatments of UHMWPE fibers
UHMWPE fibers were treated for 5 s and 7 s under atmospheric
pressure air corona discharge using SpotTEC corona power
Generator (Tantec, Lunderskov, Denmark, 6.5 kV/25 kHz and
550 W). The distance between electrode and UHMWPE fiber
surface was 5 cm.
2.2.2. AFM and nanoindentation analysis
AFM imaging analysis was performed (SPM Dualscope/
Rasterscope C26, DME, Copenhagen/Herlev, Denmark) to study
the surface topography and roughness of the fibers before
and after corona treatment. Hardness (Hi ) of the fibers was
determined using nanoindentaion technique (CSM, Peseux,
Switzerland, indentor type: Berkovich, indentor material: dia-
mond, max depth: 500 nm, loading and unloading rates:
1000 nm min−1 ). The elastic modulus of the specimen in
depth-sensing indentation techniques, used in nanoindenta-
tion test, is determined from the slope of the unloading of
the load-displacement response, Ei . Vickers hardness was also
calculated from the Hi .
2.2.3. Fourier-transform infrared spectrometer (FT-IR)
A FTIR spectrometer (EQUINOX55, Specac golden gate, ZnSe
prism, Bruker, Germany) was used in order to identify func-
tional groups formed on the fibers after corona and silane
treatments. The spectra were collected in the wavenumber
range of 4000–400 cm−1 , using attenuated total reflectance
technique (ATR-FTIR). In this technique the infrared beam is
directed into a crystal of relatively high refractive index (ZnSe)
which is in contact with the fibers. Multiple reflections of
the beam in the crystal collects the spectrum of the intimate
fibers.
2.2.4. Silanization of UHMWPE fibers
The chemical surface modification of UHMWPE fibers was car-
ried out using a 2 (wt/vol)% !-MPS in ethanol/distilled-water
(70/30 wt/wt, pH adjusted at 3.8 using acetic acid). Having the
silane pre-hydrolyzed for 1 h, the fibers were immersed in the
solution and left for 1 week at room temperature to dry.
2.2.5. Composite preparation and mechanical
measurements
The composites were classified in 5 groups (Table 2). Group 1,
group 2 and group 3 were prepared to evaluate the effect of
corona exposure time. All these three groups were made of 10
bundles for flexural test and 20 bundles for fracture toughness
test. As the volume of the fracture toughness test mold was
two times of the flexural test, twice fibers were inserted in the
fracture toughness molds to keep the fiber content constant
1024 d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 3 1 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 1022–1029

Table 1 – Materials used in the study.

Country City Company Special properties Role Name
Germany Krefeld Evonik – Resin monomer 2,2-Bis-[4-
(methacryloxypropoxy)-
phenyl]-propane
(Bis-GMA)
Germany Krefeld Evonik – Diluent Triethyleneglycol
monomer dimethacrylate (TEGDMA)
Germany Munich Sigma–Aldrich – Activator N-N′ -dimethyl aminoethyl
methacrylate (DMAEMA)
Germany Munich Sigma–Aldrich – Initiator Camphorquinone (CQ)
China Shanghai Surrey Hi-Tech Roving Reinforcing fibers Ultra-high-molecular-
continuous weight polyethylene
(SP1200/320) (UHMWPE)
Diameter
≈ 20 "m*
USA Pittsburgh Acros organics 98% Purity Silane coupling 3-(Trimethoxysilyl)propyl
agent methacrylate (!-MPS)
*
Diameter is reported based on SEM observation.

in both tests. The fiber corona treatment time was 0 s, 5 s and strength (FS) was calculated in (MPa) using the following
7 s for group 1, group 2 and group 3, respectively. The fibers formula:
in these three groups were silanized after corona treatment.
Group 4 and group 5 were made of 8 fiber bundles for flexural FS = 3pL/2bd2
test and 16 fiber bundles for fracture toughness test, corona
where p is the maximum load (N); L is the span length (mm); b
treatment time was 5 s for both of them. The fibers in group
is the width of the specimen (mm) and h, the height (mm). The
4 were silanized but the fibers in group 5 received no silane
flexural modulus was calculated from the slope of the initial
treatment to evaluate the effect of silane treatment.
linear region of stress–strain curve.

2.2.5.1. Flexural strength and flexural modulus. 0.5 wt% CQ
and 0.5 wt% DMAEMA, as photo-initiator system, were mixed
with the matrix resin (Bis-GMA/TEGDMA, 70/30 wt/wt). The
fibers were then impregnated with resin and were cut with a
sharp surgical blade and placed manually into the mold in uni-
directional (UD) position. 5 bar shaped specimens were made
of each composite group according to Table 2, using a metal
mold with the dimensions of 25 mm × 2 mm × 2 mm. The mold
was placed on a glass slide and manually filled with the pre-
impregnated fibers. A second glass slide was placed on and
pressed against it. The composite was cured with a LED den-
tal light source (L.E. Demetron 1, SDS/Kerr, Orange, CA, USA)
with power density of 600 mW cm−2 for 40 s in three consecu-
tive points, producing a partial overlapping. After curing, the
specimens were polished with abrasive paper 600 and 1000
grits and stored in distilled water at 37 ◦ C (±2 ◦ C) for 24 h.
Afterwards, they were submitted to a three point bending test
with a universal testing machine (STM 20, Santam, Tehran,
Iran) with a crosshead speed of 1 mm min−1 . The flexural
2.2.5.2. Fracture toughness. To determine the fracture tough-
ness (KIC ), rectangular bar single-edge notch beam (SENB)
specimens (n = 5) were fabricated in a 5 mm × 2 mm × 25 mm
stainless steel mold. The mold was filled with impregnated
fibers according to Table 2 and cured using the same procedure
as the flexural specimens. A 2.5 mm notch was then cut at the
center of each specimen using a 0.6 mm thick diamond wheel
cutting machine (Mecatome T 201 A, Oxford, UK). A razor blade
was then pressed on the notches to provide a sharp crack. The
bending fracture test was performed at a cross-head speed of
1 mm min−1 [29,30] using the universal testing machine and
the fracture toughness (critical stress intensity factor, KIC ) was
calculated according to the following equation [31]:
KIC = [3PL/2BW 3/2 ]Y
1/2 3/2 5/2
Y = (1.93(a/W) ) − (3.07(a/W) + 14.53(a/W)
7/2 9/2
− 25.11(a/W) + 25.8(a/W) )

Table 2 – Characteristics of the studied groups.

Groups Aim of study Fibers corona Silanization of Number of Number of
treatment time fibers with fiber bundles fiber bundles
(s) !-MPS for (flexural for (fracture
test) toughness test)
1 Effect of corona exposure time 0 Yes 10 20
2 Effect of corona exposure time 5 Yes 10 20
3 Effect of corona exposure time 7 Yes 10 20
4 Effect of silane treatment 5 Yes 8 16
5 Effect of silane treatment 5 No 8 16
 d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 3 1 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 1022–1029 1025

Fig.1 – SEM micrographs of UHMWPE fibers exposed to corona at (a) 0 s, (b) 5 s, and (c) 7 s.The images show the fiber
surface details at 30,000× magnification.

Fig.2 – AFM images show UHMWPE fibers (a) with no corona treatment, (b) treated for 5 s corona discharge, and (c) treated
for 7 s corona discharge.

where P is load at fracture (N), L, W, B, and a are length, width, silane treatments. The flexural strength, flexural modulus and
thickness, and notch length (in mm), respectively. The frac- fracture toughness of the FRCs (groups 1–3, Table 2), are shown
tured specimens were then observed under scanning electron in Fig. 4(a and b). The composite containing 5 s corona treated
microscope. fibers have statistically significant higher flexural strength
(225.7 ± 22.2 MPa), flexural modulus (45.2 ± 5.1 GPa) and frac-
2.2.6. SEM analysis ture toughness (6.8 ± 1.2 MPa m1/2 ) among the other groups
The fiber surface after treatment and fracture surfaces of
the specimens in the fracture test were observed by (FESEM,
Mira 3-XMU, Brno-Kohoutovice, Czech Republic) and (TES-
a
CAN, VEGAII, XMU, Brno-Kohoutovice, Czech Republic). The
samples were gold coated by a sputter coater before SEM obser-
b
vations.
c
Transmittance (arb. units)

2.2.7. Statistical analysis

d
The mechanical properties results were statistically analyzed
(at least 5 repeat for each test) using one-way ANOVA and the e
Tukey’s post-hoc test at the significance level of 0.05.
ν(OH) ν(C=O)

3. Results
ν(C-O-C), ν(Si-O-Si), ν(Si-O-R)

SEM and AFM microscopic imaging of the UHMWPE fibers

show different surface topographies after corona treatment
4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500
(illustrated in Figs. 1 and 2). The hardness, modulus and rough-
Wavenumber (cm-1)
ness of corona treated and untreated fibers are tabulated in
Table 3. An increasing and then decreasing trend is observed Fig.3 – ATR-FTIR spectra of UHMWPE fibers (a) untreated
upon corona discharge duration. ATR-FTIR (Fig. 3) spectrums fibers, (b) 5 s corona treated, (c) 7 s corona treated, (d) 5 s
of the fibers before and after treatments show appearance corona treated and silanized, (e) 7 s corona treated and
of functional groups on the fiber surface after corona and silanized.
1026 d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 3 1 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 1022–1029

Table 3 – Surface properties of UHMWPE fibers before and after corona treatment.
Corona time (s) Hi (MPa) HV Ei (GPa) Sq (nm)
*a c e
0 110.4 (38.8) 10.2(3.6) 7.0 (0.9) 90.5
5 314.1 (102.7)b** 29.1 (9.5)d 21.4 (8.0)f 171
7 140.0 (20.6)a 13.0 (1.9)cd 9.1 (6.9)ef 43.6
Hi : Indentation Hardness.
HV: Vickers Hardness.
Ei : Indentation Modulus.
Sq: root-mean-square (Rms) (average surface roughness).
∗
Numbers in the parenthesis represent the standard deviations.
∗∗
Means with the same letter are not significantly different at p ≤ 0.05.

Table 4 – Mechanical properties of the composites made of unsilanized and silanized fibers corona treated for 5 s.
Silane concentration (wt%) Flexural strength (MPa) Flexural modulus (GPa) Fracture toughness, KIC (MPa m1/2 )
0 (Group 5) 45.9 (9.4)*a 12.8 (3.0)c 1.7 (0.7)e
2 (Group 4) 197.2 (26.4)b** 39.3 (8.0)d 5.9 (1.8)f
∗
Numbers in the parenthesis represent the standard deviations.
∗∗
The letters show significant difference at p ≤ 0.05.

300 fracture (Figs. 5 and 6) improvements in the adhesion between

a 50 fibers and matrix resin is observed after corona and silane
250 treatments.
40
Flexural strength (MPa)

Flexural modulus (GPa)

200
30
4. Discussion
150
20
The characteristics of the interface between the UHMWPE
fibers and the polymer matrix is an important factor determin-
100 10
ing the mechanical properties of UHMWPE fiber-reinforced
composites [24]. With the aim of improving the mechani-
50 0
0 2 4 6 8 cal properties of UHMWPE-based dental FRCs double surface
treatment of the fibers were performed using corona discharge
Corona treatment time (sec)
and silanization. The results verified the hypothesis that the
FS FM treatments improved mechanical properties of the compos-
ites through improving the interfacial adhesion between the
b
Fracture toughness, KIC, (MPa.m1/2)

8 fibers and the matrix resin.

The SEM images (Fig. 1a) shows the smooth surface of
untreated UHMWPE fibers, only a few shallow longitudinal
6
crevices is seen which are formed during the spinning of
the fibers. After corona treatment, the crevices are almost
4
removed but micro-pits are formed on the surface of 5 s corona
treated fibers (Fig. 1b). Fig. 1c, however, shows deepening of the
2 crevices after 7 s corona. Up to 5 s the fibers receive enough
energy for melting the superficial polymer and disappearing
0 the longitudinal grooves along with the formation of some
0 2 4 6 8 micro-pits on the surface. At longer exposure times (here 7 s),
Corona treatment time (sec)
high corona energy may degrade the polymer or melt the bulk
of the polymer leading to the deformation and/or rupture of
Fig.4 – Mechanical properties of the FRCs corona exposure the fibers which are seen in Fig. 1c. This morphological change
time, (a) flexural strength and flexural modulus, (b) fracture may be attributed to excavating the fibers surface [32] and
toughness. partly broken UHMWPE polymer chains under the high energy
corona [33]. The presence of micro-pits on the fiber surface can
improve the interfacial adhesion of fiber–matrix through the
(p < 0.05). The FRC with silanized fibers, in Table 4, shows mechanical interlocking between the micro-pits and the resin
higher flexural strength (197.2 ± 26.4 MPa), flexural modu- [17]. The changes in fiber surface roughness are also presented
lus (39.3 ± 8.0 GPa) and fracture toughness (5.9 ± 1.8 MPa m1/2 ) in Table 3. The AFM images (Fig. 2) clearly show the increasing
compared to FRC made of unsilanized fibers (p < 0.05). (Fig. 2b) and decreasing (Fig. 2c) of the surface roughness in 5 s
According to the SEM images of composite specimens after and 7 s corona exposure times, respectively.
 d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 3 1 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 1022–1029 1027

Fig.5 – Fracture surface of composite made of (a) untreated fibers, (b) 5 s corona treated fibers, (c) 7 s corona treated fibers.

UHMWPE fibers are not adequately bonded to the poly-
mer matrix because of their chemical inertness, low surface
energy, and the absence of any polar groups on the sur-
face of fibers. Corona treatment may introduce polar groups
into the polymer surfaces and increase the surface energy,
substrate wettability, hydrophilicity and adhesion charac-
teristics [10,34]. The main chemical mechanism of corona
treatment is oxidation which introduce oxygen contain-
ing groups on the fiber surface [34,35]. ATR-FTIR (Fig. 3)
spectrums of the treated and untreated fibers illustrates the
appearance of stretching vibration of hydroxyl groups (!(OH)
at 3200–3600 cm−1 ), stretching vibration of carbonyl groups
(!(C O) at ∼1710 cm−1 ), and stretching vibration of C O C
groups (at ∼1100 cm−1 ). These groups change the surface
chemistry and surface energy of the fibers [36] which, con-
sequently, affect the adhesion characteristics of the fibers.
Considering the absorption peak of in-plane bending (scissor-
ing) vibration of CH2 groups (ıs at 1464 cm−1 ), which are not
changed during corona treatment, as internal reference, the
ratio of #(C O)area /ıs (CH2 ) was calculated. The ratio is 0.07 for
5 s exposure and 0.09 for 7 s treatment, which indicates that
more oxygen-containing groups are formed on the surface
with increasing corona exposure time.
The surface elastic modulus and hardness (Table 3) shows
a significant increasing trend up to 5 s (p < 0.05) which then
plateaued out or decreased with further corona exposure. The
increase in the hardness and modulus of the fibers may be
attributed to the surface crosslinking of the polymer chains.
Peroxy radicals formed on the surface of the fibers further
to corona exposure may cause either crosslinking of the
polymer chains or chain scission. Under normal treatment
conditions the chain crosslinking reaction is dominant and
under severe conditions which polymer receive higher corona
energy the chain scission is prevalent [35]. UHMWPE is a
semi-crystalline polymer [37,38]. Crosslinking create covalent
bonds between neighboring chains primarily in the amor-
phous region [39] resulting in higher surface modulus and
hardness. At higher exposure times, however, chain scission
along with the melting of the surface polymer layer may
decrease molecular weight and crystallinity of the UHMWPE
which consequently decrease the mechanical properties of
the polymer (Table 3). Therefore, it can be concluded that
although micro-pits formed on fiber surfaces may strengthen
fiber–matrix bond, higher exposure may cause great loss of
fiber strength. Therefore, a trade-off between the fiber–matrix
bond and fiber strength loss should be considered [40].

Fig.6 – Fracture surface of composite made of (a) fibers with no silane treatment (group 5), (b) fibers treated with 2% silane
(group 4).
1028 d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 3 1 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 1022–1029
Placing fibers in the resin toughens the composite through
different mechanisms among them are blunting the crack
front path or changing the crack direction [41]. The effect of
incorporation of the fibrous reinforcements, however, strongly
dependent upon interfacial adhesion between the resin and
the fiber [42]. In this study composite containing 5 s corona
treated fiber exhibited significantly higher flexural strength,
flexural modulus, and fracture toughness than other groups
(p < 0.05) (Fig. 4). It has been reported that corona treatment of
carbon fibers significantly increased the flexural strength of
composites made of the fibers [14]. The 5 s corona treatment
of the UHMWPE fibers provides micro-pits on the surface of
fibers and change the surface chemistry through introduc-
ing polar oxygen-containing groups. The former provides
micromechanical interlocking between matrix resin and fibers
and the latter enhances the wetting of the fibers by resin
matrix. Both modifications increase the interfacial adhesion
and enhance the ability of the FRC to absorb energy and
exhibit higher mechanical properties. SEM fractographs of
the FRCs (Fig. 5) also illustrate a good interfacial adhesion
between resin matrix and fibers in the composites rein-
forced with 5 s corona treated fibers while a poor adhesion
is observed in the FRC containing untreated fibers. The FRC
reinforced with 7 s corona treated fibers not only shows lack
of good interfacial adhesion but also reveals the deformation
of fibers due to the exposure to high energy corona at longer
times.
Silane treatment of the fibers resulted in FRCs with
higher mechanical properties (p<0.05) (Table 4). Silane cou-
pling agents are usually applied on the surface of reinforcing
particulates or fibers to increase their wetting properties
and provide good adhesion between the resin matrix and
reinforcing phase. The chemical structure and curing mech-
anism of the matrix resin are determining factors in the
selection of organosilanes [43]. !-MPS with methacrylate
organic functionality is the silane of choice for (meth)acrylate
matrix resins. The silane, however, needs OH functional
groups on the surface of reinforcing phase to react through
its silanol functional groups formed after pre-hydrolysis. The
OH groups are introduced on the fiber surface by corona
treatment. The ATR-FTIR spectra of the corona treated and
silanized UHMWPE fibers (Fig. 3, spectrums d and e) show
strong Si O Si and Si O R stretching absorption bands at
around 1130–1000 cm−1 (the Si-alkoxy bands are usually apt
to be masked by strong Si O Si absorption). The broad peak
around 3600–3200 cm−1 are attributed to the silanol groups of
the !-MPS as well as OH functional groups introduced on
the surface of fibers due to corona treatment. The stretch-
ing vibration of carbonyl groups (!(C O) at ∼1710 cm−1 ) is
stronger after silanization which is attributed to the car-
bonyl group of the methacrylate end of !-MPS. The peak at
∼1735 cm−1 is also assigned to the C C group of the silane
coupling agent. The interaction between the methacrylate
matrix resin (Bis-GMA/TEGDMA) and the silanized corona
treated UHMWPE fibers is a combination of micromechan-
ical interlocking due to the presence of micro-pits, covalent
bonds owing to the polymerization of methacrylate resins
with methacrylate functional group of !-MPS, and polar inter-
actions between oxygen-containing groups on the surface of
the fibers and ester/OH groups of the matrix resin.
SEM micrographs (Fig. 6) show the debonding of the fibers
from the matrix resin in FRC made of fiber with no silane
treatment while a good adhesion is observed between the
silane treated fibers and matrix which confirm improved inter-
facial adhesion to the matrix resin and consequently higher
mechanical properties in the case of composites contain-
ing corona and silane treated fibers. The strong mechanical
interlocking along with the methacrylate functional groups of
silane coupling agent prevent the crack propagation trough
the fiber–matrix interface resulting in higher performance and
mechanical properties of the final FRC [28,44].
5. Conclusions
Treatment of UHMWPE fibers with corona in controlled time
changes the fiber surface chemistry, topography, roughness,
hardness, and elastic modulus. The surface hardness, modu-
lus, and roughness of the fibers were enhanced when exposed
to 5 s corona discharge and then decreased with further
increase in the exposure time. The corona treated fibers results
in the FRCs with improved flexural properties and higher
fracture toughness. Introducing oxygen-containing functional
groups on the surface of the fibers due to corona discharge
makes the grafting of !-MPS coupling agent on the surface
possible. The silanization of corona treated fibers significantly
enhances the mechanical properties of the FRCs due to for-
mation of good interfacial bonding between the fibers and
matrix resin. It is concluded that mutual corona and silane
surface treatments of UHMWPE fibers is a promising method
for fabrication of the UHMWPE reinforced dental FRCs.
referenc es
[1] Ramakrishna S, Mayer J, Wintermantel E, Leong W.
Biomedical applications of polymer-composite materials: a
review. Compos Sci Technol 2001;61:1189–224.
[2] van Heumen CC, Kreulen CM, Bronkhorst EM, Lesaffre E,
Creugers NH. Fiber-reinforced dental composites in beam
testing. Dent Mater 2008;24:1435–43.
[3] Freilich MA, Karmaker AC, Burstone CJ, Goldberg AJ.
Development and clinical applications of a
light-polymerized fiber-reinforced composite. Prosthet Dent
1998;80:311–8.
[4] Goldberg AJ, Burstone CJ. The use of continuous fiber
reinforcement in dentistry. Dent Mater 1992;8:197–202.
[5] Mallick PK. Fiber-reinforced composites: materials,
manufacturing, and design. CRC press; 2010.
[6] Shubhra QT, Alam A, Quaiyyum M. Mechanical properties of
polypropylene composites: a review. J Thermoplast Compos
Mater 2011;26:362–91.
[7] Miao C, Hamad WY. Cellulose reinforced polymer
composites and nanocomposites: a critical review. Cellulose
2013;20:2221–62.
[8] Sui G, Zhong WH, Ren X, Wang XQ, Yang XP. Structure,
mechanical properties and friction behavior of
UHMWPE/HDPE/carbon nanofibers. Mater Chem Phys
2009;115:404–12.
[9] Marissen R. Design with ultra strong polyethylene fibers.
Mater Sci Appl 2011;02:319–30.
[10] Oosterom R, Ahmed TJ, Poulis JA, Bersee HE. Adhesion
performance of UHMWPE after different surface
 d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 3 1 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 1022–1029
modification techniques. Med Eng Phys 2006;28:
323–30.
[11] Debnath S, Ranade R, Wunder SL, Baran GR, Zhang J, Fisher
ER. Chemical surface treatment of ultrahigh molecular
weight polyethylene for improved adhesion to methacrylate
resins. J Appl Polym Sci 2005;96:1564–72.
[12] Etcheverry M, Damiani DE, Ferreira ML, Barbosa SE, Capiati
NJ. Chemical grafting of metallocene-catalyzed functional
polypropylene copolymer on glass substrates through
surface modification. J Appl Polym Sci 2008;109:2815–22.
[13] Xu W, Liu X. Surface modification of polyester fabric by
corona discharge irradiation. Eur Polym J 2003;39:199–202.
[14] Fathi B, Esfandeh M, Soltani AK, Taghavian H. Effect of
corona discharge treatment on dynamic mechanical
properties of unsaturated polyester/carbon fiber pultruded
composites. Polym Plast Technol Eng 2014;53:162–6.
[15] Liu H, Xie D, Qian L, Deng X, Leng YX, Huang N. The
mechanical properties of the ultrahigh molecular weight
polyethylene (UHMWPE) modified by oxygen plasma. Surf
Coat Technol 2011;205:2697–701.
[16] Moon SI, Jang J. The effect of the oxygen-plasma treatment
of UHMWPE fiber on the transverse properties of
UHMWPE-fiber/vinylester composites. Compos Sci Technol
1999;59:487–93.
[17] Yeh J-T, Lai Y-C, Suen M-C, Chen C-C. An improvement on
the adhesion-strength of laminated
ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene fabrics:
surface-etching/modification using highly effective
helium/oxygen/nitrogen plasma treatment. Polym Adv
Technol 2011;22:1971–81.
[18] Mittal KL. Polymer surface modification: relevance to
adhesion. CRC Press; 2007.
[19] Wang J, Liang G, Zhao W, Lü S, Zhang Z. Studies on surface
modification of UHMWPE fibers via UV initiated grafting.
Appl Surf Sci 2006;253:668–73.
[20] Cho EH, Lee SG, Kim JK. Surface modification of UHMWPE
with !-ray radiation for improving interfacial bonding
strength with bone cement (II). Curr Appl Phys 2005;5:475–9.
[21] Chang J-S, Lawless PA, Yamamoto T. Corona discharge
processes. IEEE Trans Plasma Sci 1991:1152–66.
[22] Zhang D, Wadsworth LC. Corona treatment of polyolefin
films—a review. Adv Polym Technol 1999;18:171–80.
[23] Iqbal HMS, Bhowmik S, Benedictus R. Surface modification
of high performance polymers by atmospheric pressure
plasma and failure mechanism of adhesive bonded joints.
Int J Adhes Adhes 2010;30:418–24.
[24] Lin SP, Han JL, Yeh JT, Chang FC, Hsieh KH. Composites of
UHMWPE fiber reinforced PU/epoxy grafted interpenetrating
polymer networks. Eur Polym J 2007;43:996–1008.
[25] Hamza TA, Rosenstiel SF, Elhosary MM, Ibraheem RM. The
effect of fiber reinforcement on the fracture toughness and
flexural strength of provisional restorative resins. J Prosthet
Dent 2004;91:258–64.
[26] Park S-J, Jin J-S. Effect of silane coupling agent on interphase
and performance of glass fibers/unsaturated polyester
composites. J Colloid Interface Sci 2001;242:174–9.
[27] Park S-J, Jin J-S. Effect of silane coupling agent on
mechanical interfacial properties of glass fiber-reinforced
unsaturated polyester composites. Polym Sci Part B: Poly
Phys 2003;41:55–62.
1029
[28] Abdelmouleh M, Boufi S, Belgacem M, Dufresne A. Short
natural-fibre reinforced polyethylene and natural rubber
composites: effect of silane coupling agents and fibres
loading. Compos Sci Technol 2007;67:1627–39.
[29] Polymer Composites, Volume 1, Macro- and
Microcomposites. Sabu Thomas, Kuruvilla Joseph, Malhotra
SK, Koichi Goda, Sreekala MS, editors. 2012.
[30] Park SJ, Kim MH, Lee JR, Choi S. Effect of fiber-polymer
interactions on fracture toughness behavior of carbon
fiber-reinforced epoxy matrix composites. J Colloid Interface
Sci 2000;228:287–91.
[31] Atai M, Pahlavan A, Moin N. Nano-porous thermally sintered
nano silica as novel fillers for dental composites. Dent Mater
2012;28:133–45.
[32] Carradò A, Sokolova O, Donnio B, Palkowski H. Influence of
corona treatment on adhesion and mechanical properties in
metal/polymer/metal systems. J Appl Polym Sci
2011;120:3709–15.
[33] Zheng Z, Tang X, Shi M, Zhou G. Surface modification of
ultrahigh-molecular-weight polyethylene fibers. Polym Sci
Part B: Polym Phys 2004;42:463–72.
[34] Zheng Z, Tang X, Shi M, Zhou G. A study of the influence of
controlled corona treatment on UHMWPE fibres in
reinforced vinylester composites. Polym Int 2003;52:1833–8.
[35] Zhang D, Sun Q, Wadsworth LC. Mechanism of corona
treatment on polyolefin films. Polym Eng Sci 1998;38:
965–70.
[36] Kondyurin A, Naseri P, Fisher K, McKenzie DR, Bilek MMM.
Mechanisms for surface energy changes observed in plasma
immersion ion implanted polyethylene: the roles of free
radicals and oxygen-containing groups. Polym Degrad Stab
2009;94:638–46.
[37] Barron D, Birkinshaw C. Ultra-high molecular weight
polyethylene – evidence for a three-phase morphology.
Polymer 2008;49:3111–5.
[38] Barron D, Birkinshaw C. On the morphology of some
irradiated ultra high molecular weight polyethylenes. Polym
Degrad Stab 2009;94:1621–31.
[39] Ries MD, Pruitt L. Effect of cross-linking on the
microstructure and mechanical properties of ultra-high
molecular weight polyethylene. Clin Orthop Relat Res
2005;440:149–56.
[40] Wan YZ, Wang YL, Zhou FG, Cheng GX, Han KY.
Three-dimensionally braided carbon fiber-epoxy
composites, a new type of materials for osteosynthesis
devices. II. Influence of fiber surface treatment. J Appl Polym
Sci 2002;85:1040–6.
[41] Li S, Thouless M, Waas A, Schroeder J, Zavattieri P. Use of a
cohesive-zone model to analyze the fracture of a
fiber-reinforced polymer? matrix composite. Compos Sci
Technol 2005;65:537–49.
[42] Wang TWH, Blum FD. Effect of interfacial mobility on
flexural strength and fracture toughness of glass/epoxy
laminates. Mater Sci 1999;34:4873–82.
[43] Plueddemann EP. Adhesion through silane coupling agents.
In: Lee L-H, editor. Fundamentals of adhesion; 1991. p.
279–290.
[44] Xie Y, Hill CAS, Xiao Z, Militz H, Mai C. Silane coupling
agents used for natural fiber/polymer composites: a review.
Compos Part A: Appl Sci Manuf 2010;41:806–19.