Journal List > J Korean Acad Conserv Dent > v.31(1) > 1056238

TOOLS
Seo and Roh: The comparison of relative reliability on biaxial and three point flexural strength testing methods of light curing composite resin
Original Article
Journal of Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry

Journal of Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry 2006; 31(1): 58-65.

Published online: 31 January 2006

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2006.31.1.058

The comparison of relative reliability on biaxial and three point flexural strength testing methods of light curing composite resin

Deog-Gyu Seo, Byoung-Duck Roh

Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University, Korea.

Corresponding Author: Byoung-Duck Roh. Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University, 134 Shinchon-dong, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, 120-752, Korea. Tel: 82-2-2228-3146, Fax: 82-2-313-7575, operatys16@yumc.yonsei.ac.kr

Received 9 August 2005       Revised 30 October 2005       Accepted 28 December 2005

Copyright © 2006 Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry

(open-access):

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

The possibility of applying a bi-axial flexure strength test on composite resin was examined using three point and bi-axial flexure strength tests to measure the strength of the light-cured resin and to compare the relative reliability using the Weibull modulus.
The materials used in this study were light-curing restorative materials, MICRONEW™, RENEW® (Bisco, Schaumburg, USA). The bi-axial flexure strength measurements used the piston-on-3-ball test according to the regulations of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 6872 and were divided into 6 groups, where the radius of the specimens were 12 mm (radius connecting the 3-balls: 3.75 mm), 16 mm (radius connecting the 3-balls: 5 mm), and the thickness were 0.5 mm, 1 mm, 2 mm for each radius.
The bi-axial flexure strength of the MICRONEW™ and RENEW® were higher than the three point flexure strength and the Weibull modulus value were also higher in all of the bi-axial flexure strength groups, indicating that the bi-axial strength test is relatively less affected by experimental error.
In addition, the 2 mm thick specimens had the highest Weibull modulus values in the bi-axial flexure strength test, and the MICRONEW™ group showed no significant statistical difference (p > 0.05). Besides the 2 mm MICRONEW™ group, each group showed significant statistical differences (p < 0.05) according to the thickness of the specimen and the radius connecting the 3-balls.
The results indicate that for the 2 mm group, the bi-axial flexure strength test is a more reliable testing method than the three point flexure strength test.

Keywords: Biaxial flexure strength, Three point flexure strength, Weibull modulus, Composite resin

Figures and Tables

Figure 1
Schematic illustration of three point flexure test.
jkacd-31-58-g001
Figure 2
Schematic illustration of piston-on-three-ball bi-axial flexure test.
jkacd-31-58-g002
Figure 3
Weibull modulus graph according to specimen thickness on 3.75 mm supporting ball radius (MICRONEW™, Bisco, Schaumburg, U.S.A.).
jkacd-31-58-g003
Figure 4
Weibull modulus graph according to specimen thickness on 5 mm supporting ball radius (MICRONEW™, Bisco, Schaumburg, U.S.A.).
jkacd-31-58-g004
Figure 5
Weibull modulus graph according to specimen thickness on 3.75 mm supporting ball radius (RENEW®, Bisco, Schaumburg, U.S.A.).
jkacd-31-58-g005
Figure 6
Weibull modulus graph according to specimen thickness on 5 mm supporting ball radius (RENEW®, Bisco, Schaumburg, U.S.A.).
jkacd-31-58-g006
Table 1
Light cured composite resin used in this study
jkacd-31-58-i001
Table 2
Mean flexure strength and Weibull modulus of three point flexure test and biaxial flexure test
jkacd-31-58-i002

If the alphabet is different, significant difference at α= 0.05 (between the thickness on the same diameter).

*indicates significant difference at α= 0.05 (between the diameter on the same thickness).

Table 3
Mean flexure strength and Weibull modulus of three point flexure test and biaxial flexure test
jkacd-31-58-i003

If the alphabet is different, significant difference at α= 0.05 (between the thickness on the same diameter).

*indicates significant difference at α= 0.05 (between the diameter on the same thickness).

References

1. Anusavice KJ, Hojjatie B. Stress distribution in metal ceramic crowns with a facial porcelain margin. J Dent Res. 1987. 66:1493–1498.
crossref
2. Zidan O, Asmussen E, et al. Tensile strength of restorative resins. Scand J Dent Res. 1980. 88:285–289.
crossref
3. Bryant RW, Mahler DB. Modulus of elasticity in bending of composites and amalgams. J Prosthet Dent. 1986. 56:243–248.
crossref
4. Radford KC, Lange FF. Loading factors for the biaxial flexure test. J Am Ceram Soc. 1978. 61(5-6):211–213.
5. Han BS. Al2O3 selamigseu-ui yeolchunggyeog pagoe geodonggwa yeol-eunglyeog haeseog. 1997. Yeonsei Univ. Graduate School;doctorate thesis.
6. Mckinney KR, Herbert CM. Effect of surface finish on structual ceramic failure. J Am Ceram Soc. 1970. 53:513–516.
7. Kirstein AF, Woolley RM. Symmetrical bending of thin circular elastic plates of equally spaced point supports. J Res Nall Burstds. 1967. 71(C):1–10.
8. Kao R, Perrone N, Capps W. Large-deflection solution of the coaxial-ring-circular-glass-plate flexure problem. J Am Ceram Soc. 1971. 54:566–571.
crossref
9. Shetty DK, Roesinfield AR, Duckworth WH, Held PR. A Biaxial-flexure test for evaluating ceramic strength. J Am Ceram Soc. 1983. 66:36–42.
10. Marshall DB. An improved biaxial flexure test of ceramics. Am Ceram Soc Bull. 1980. 59:551–553.
11. Lamon J. Statistical approaches to failure for ceramic reliability assessment. J Am Ceram Soc. 1988. 71:106–112.
crossref
12. Wilshaw TR. Measurement of tensile strength of ceramics. J Am Ceram Soc. 1968. 51:111–117.
crossref
13. Park SE. Biaxial fracture behavior and simulation for prediction of fatigue lifetime in alumina by ball-on-3ball test. 2000. Yeonsei Univ. Graduate School;doctorate thesis.
14. Shetty DK, Roesinfield AR, Macguire P, Bansal GK, Duckworth WH. Biaxial flexure tests for ceramics. Am Ceram Soc Bull. 1980. 59(12):1193–1197.
15. Shetty DK, Roesinfield AR, Bansal GK, Duckworth WH. Biaxial fracture stuies of a glass-ceramic. J Am Ceram Soc. 1981. 64(1):1–4.
16. Williams RM, Swank LR. Use of Weibull statics to correlate MOR, Ball-on-ring, and rotational fast fracture tests. J Am Ceram Soc. 1983. 66(11):756–768.
17. Ham-Su R, Wilkinson DS. Strength of tape cast and laminated ceramics. J Am Ceram Soc. 1995. 78(6):1580–1584.
crossref
18. Chiang MYM, Tesk JA. Differences: Hertz vs finite element calculation for diametral tensile strength. J Dent Res. 1989. 68:341–348.
19. Ban S, Anusavice KJ. Influence of test method on failure stress of brittle dental materials. J Dent Res. 1990. 69(12):1791–1799.
crossref
TOOLS
Similar articles