Hyppää sisältöön
    • Suomeksi
    • In English
  • Suomeksi
  • In English
  • Kirjaudu
Näytä aineisto 
  •   Etusivu
  • 3. UTUCris-artikkelit
  • Rinnakkaistallenteet
  • Näytä aineisto
  •   Etusivu
  • 3. UTUCris-artikkelit
  • Rinnakkaistallenteet
  • Näytä aineisto
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

Effect of interface surface design on the fracture behavior of bilayered composites

Lassila LV; Vallittu PK; Garoushi S; Omran TA

Effect of interface surface design on the fracture behavior of bilayered composites

Lassila LV
Vallittu PK
Garoushi S
Omran TA
Katso/Avaa
Publisher's PDF (CC BY NC ND) (1.570Mb)
Lataukset: 

doi:10.1111/eos.12617
Näytä kaikki kuvailutiedot
Julkaisun pysyvä osoite on:
https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi-fe2021042825629
Tiivistelmä

This study aimed to evaluate the effect of different interface designs on the load-bearing capacity of bilayered composite structures (BLS). Cylindrical specimens of BLS were prepared from base composite of 3.5 mm thickness and surface composite of 1.5 mm thickness (n = 80). Two different base composites - flowable bulk-fill (FBF) [smart dentin replacement (SDR)] and short fiber-reinforced (FRC) (everX Posterior) - were evaluated, and conventional composite (G-aenial Posterior) was used as the surface layer. Four different interface designs were used: (i) pyramidal; (ii) mesh; (iii) linear grooves; and (iv) flat surface (control). Three-dimensional printed molds were fabricated to standardize the interface design between the surface and the base composites. The specimens were then statically loaded with a steel ball until fracture using a universal testing machine. Fracture types were classified into catastrophic, complete, and partial bulk. ANOVA revealed that both the material and the interface design had a statistically significant effect on the load-bearing capacity. Flowable bulk-fill showed lower mean load-bearing capacity than FRC in all the interface designs tested, except for the flat surface design. Fracture analysis showed that FRC demonstrated up to 100% partial bulk fractures with the pyramid interface design, but no incidence of catastrophic bulk fracture. By contrast, FBF demonstrated up to 84.6% and 40% catastrophic bulk fractures with the flat interface design but no incidence of partial bulk fracture. Consequently, the interface designs studied enhanced the fracture behavior of BLS.

Kokoelmat
  • Rinnakkaistallenteet [19207]

Turun yliopiston kirjasto | Turun yliopisto
julkaisut@utu.fi | Tietosuoja | Saavutettavuusseloste
 

 

Tämä kokoelma

JulkaisuajatTekijätNimekkeetAsiasanatTiedekuntaLaitosOppiaineYhteisöt ja kokoelmat

Omat tiedot

Kirjaudu sisäänRekisteröidy

Turun yliopiston kirjasto | Turun yliopisto
julkaisut@utu.fi | Tietosuoja | Saavutettavuusseloste