Influence of Different Techniques of Laboratory Construction on the Fracture Resistance of Fiber-Reinforced Composite (FRC) Bridges.

The aim of the current investigation is to evaluate optimal pontic and retainer fiber positions for Polyethylene fiber-reinforced composite (FRC) restorations. In series I notch disc specimens were used to mimic loading cuspal regions of pontics. Four groups (n=15/group; codes A to D) were prepared from Artglass composite. Groups A to C were reinforced with polyethylene fibers, and group D was an unreinforced control. Fibers were positioned either around (A), beneath the notch (B), or at the disc base (C). Specimens were stored in distilled water at 37 degrees C for 24 h before testing to failure (CHS=1mm/min) in a universal testing machine. Mean torque to failure values ranked [P< 0.05; one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)] as follows A = B > C = D. In series II five groups of three unit bridges (n =5/group; codes A to E) were prepared from Artglass dental composite without (group A) or with (groups B to E) different Connect fiber reinforcement locations/techniques. Bridges were cemented using 2 bond resin cement to a standardized substructure. After storage, as per series I, bridges were loaded mid-pontic region to failure. One-way ANOVA showed no significant (P=0.08) difference between test groups. The research hypothesis was that notched disc and 3 unit bridge test techniques would discriminate equally between fiber-reinforced specimens and an unreinforced composite control was rejected.