-
d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 3 0 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 570577
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
jo ur nal ho me pag e: www.int l .e lsev ierhea l th .com/
journa ls /dema
Bioac posite: Effect ofcoupling of llers and ller loading on
somephysical properties
Onur Ora Departmenof Turku, Leb Departmen
a r t i c
Article histor
Received 16
Accepted 20
Keywords:
Bioactive gl
Biostable gl
Silanization
Polymers
Composite
Biopolymer
CorrespoE-mail a
http://dx.do0109-5641/Cala,, Lippo V. Lassilaa, Ovul
Kumbuloglub, Pekka K. Vallittua
t of Biomaterials Science & Turku Clinical Biomaterials
CentreTCBC, Institute of Dentistry, Universitymminkisenkatu 2,
FI-20014 Turku, Finlandt of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry,
Ege University, Izmir, Turkey
l e i n f o
y:
April 2013
February 2014
ass
ass
a b s t r a c t
Objectives. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect
of silanization of biostable
and bioactive glass llers in a polymer matrix on some of the
physical properties of the
composite.
Methods. The water absorption, solubility, exural strength,
exural modulus and toughness
of different particulate ller composite resins were studied in
vitro. Five different speci-
men groups were analyzed: A glass-free control, a non-silanized
bioactive glass, a silanized
bioactive glass, a non-silanized biostable glass and a silanized
biostable glass groups. All
of these ve groups were further divided into sub-groups of dry
and water-stored materi-
als, both of them containing groups with 3 wt%, 6 wt%, 9 wt% or
12 wt% of glass particles
(n = 8 per group). The silanization of the glass particles was
carried out with 2% of gamma-
3-methacryloxyproyltrimethoxysilane (MPS). For the water
absorption and solubility tests,
the test specimens were stored in water for 60 days, and the
percentages of weight change
were statistically analyzed. Flexural strength, exural modulus
and toughness values were
tested with a three-point bending test and statistically
analyzed.
Results. Higher solubility values were observed in non-silanized
glass in proportion to the
percentage of glass particles. Silanization, on the other hand,
decreased the solubility values
of both types of glass particles and polymer. While 12 wt%
non-silanized bioactive glass
specimens showed 0.98 wt% solubility, 12 wt% silanized biostable
glass specimens wereobserved to have only 0.34 wt% solubility.
The three-point bending results of the dry specimens showed that
exural strength,
toughness and exural modulus decreased in proportion to the
increase of glass llers.
The control group presented the highest results (106.6 MPa for
exural strength, 335.7 kPA
for toughness, 3.23 GPa for exural modulus), whereas for exural
strength and toughness,
12 wt% of non-silanized biostable glass ller groups presented
the lowest (70.3 MPa for ex-
ural strength, 111.5 kPa for toughness). For exural modulus on
the other hand, 12 wt% of
silanized biostable glass ller group gave the lowest results
(2.57 GPa).
nding author. Tel.: +90 553 2175103; fax: +90 232
2274053/2273420.ddress: onuora@utu. (O. Oral).
i.org/10.1016/j.dental.2014.02.017rown Copyright 2014 Published
by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of The Academy of Dental Materials. All
rights reserved.tive glass particulate ller com
-
d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 3 0 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 570577 571
Signicance. The silanization of glass llers improved the
properties of the glass as well as
the properties of the composite. Silanization of bioactive glass
may protect the glass from
leaching at early stage of water storage.
lishe
1. Int
Synthetic hceramics haimplants mtive matersystem, Bimodied bythe
eld of position of presently Bity and antprominent through ththe
subseqCaP, in shprocess, abioactivity
Both bioas biomatemethacrylamer used fPMMA haslong bone
simplants [1ever, is impthe ller paout of the mto the propSilanes
as ticles to thbiostable orprovide proerties of thtime. Gamthe
silane the most st
The aimcal charactbiostable glof the glass
2. Ma
The resin son an autoglycol dimpowder coWehrheim,1000 m, V
lar silanisites
BG of pded
9 wtes ws: 2 wr thes ofAldrer. Th to ried
gla mmerizationre, 1, Lieby 1s A/
spnesslled bept iwereecim
wared b
immight emovnd w
(0.00 wertion
bsor
tial w (g).
meCrown Copyright 2014 Pub
roduction
ydroxyapatites, bioactive glass (BG) and glass-ve been used in
recent years to transform biostableade of metals and polymer
composites into bioac-ials [15]. After the introduction of the rst
BGoglass45S5 by Prof. Hench, the system has been
many researchers, and it has been introduced totissue
engineering [6,7]. Modications to the com-BG were undertaken by
Andersson et al. [8,9], andG S53P4 is used in applications where
bioactiv-imicrobial properties are required [10]. The mostfeature
of BGs is their bioactivity. Bioactivity occurse union of calcium
and phosphate groups anduent formation of a calcium phosphate
(CaO-P2O5,ort) layer. CaP formation is a tissue-dependentnd in
vitro bioactivity correlates with in vivo[10,11].degradable and
biostable polymers are used widelyrials in medicine and dentistry
[1214]. Poly(methylte) (PMMA) is a commonly used biostable poly-or
example in bone cements and dentures [1518].
been combined with BG llers to be used asegmental defect repair
materials and in calvarial921]. Adhesion between ller and polymer,
how-ortant in the transfer of load from the matrix torticles. The
BG ller particles, as they are leachedatrix over time, could cause
considerable changeserties of the composite under moist
conditions.bi-functional compounds can bind the ller par-e polymer
matrix regardless whether the glass is
leachable. In the latter case, silanization may alsotection for
leaching, and thus the mechanical prop-e composite may be retained
for a longer period ofma-3-methacryloxypropyltrimethoxysilane
(MPS),used in this study, is a trialkoxysilane and one ofudied
silane compounds [2225].
of the study was to evaluate some of the physi-eristics
composites containing both bioactive andass with regard to the
silanization and ller loading.
terials and methods
(granuboth scompo
Thethe aidand ad6 wt%,particlfollowand foof glasSigmadecantfor
24 then d
Theinto 65polyminstrucpressuSchaandown (Struer300 rpma
thickcontrothen kmens test sp
Themeasubeforethe wewere rdried a0.1 mgvaluesabsorpbelow:
Water a
m1: iniweight
The
ystem for the matrix of the composites was basedpolymerizing
methyl methacrylate and ethyleneethacrylate (95:5, w/w) monomer
system with amponent of PMMA (Palapress, Heraeus-Kulzer,
Germany). Bioactive (particulate size from 315 toivoxid LTD.,
Finland) and biostable glass particles
sured by atesting mawere placedtip on the sof the deviFlexural
strd by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of The Academy of Dental
Materials. All rights reserved.
ize from 915 to 1000 m, Vivoxid LTD., Finland),zed and
non-silanized, were used as llers in the
(Table 1).and biostable glass particles were measured
withrecision scale of 1 mg (Mettler PM100, Toledo, USA)
to the resin in PMMA powder to prepare 3 wt%,%, and 12 wt%
composites. Silanization of glassas done before adding them in to
the resin ast% MPS-silane (98% MPS, lot.0182EH-497, Aldrich)
hydrolysis of the MPS-silane, double the amount toluene (99.5%,
A.C.S reagent lot.03334ME-157,ich) were mixed with the glass
particles in ahe silanization decanter was left in a fume
hoodevaporate the toluene, and the glass powder wasin 90 C for 3
h.ss particle containing resin mixture was poured
10 mm 3.5 mm stainless steel molds and thetion was carried out
according to manufacturerss (10 mL powder/7 mL liquid; under 55 C,
200 kPa5 min curing time) (Ivomat, Typ IP 2, Ivoclar
AG.,chtenstein). Polymerized specimens were ground80, 500,
1200-grit (FEPA) silicon carbide papersS, Rodovre, Denmark) under
water cooling witheed (LaboPol-21, Struers A/S, Rodovre, Denmark)
to
of 3 0.1 mm. The specimens dimensions werey the means of an
electronic caliper, and they weren excicator for 1 week before
testing. Test speci-
classied as shown in Table 2. There were eightens (n = 8) in
each of the groups.ter absorption of the composite specimens wasy
determining the initial weights of the specimensersion (m1) to
distilled water and comparing it withof the specimen after
immersion (m2). Specimensed from water on days of 1, 2, 3, 7, 14,
21, 30, 45, 60;eighed after 1 min by the aid of precision scale
of01 g) (Mettler Toledo AT261 DeltaRang, USA). Tene obtained in
this way from each specimen. Water
percentages were determined using the formula
ption% = m2 m1m1
100
eight before absorption test (g); m2: last measured
chanical properties of the specimens were mea-
three point bending test performed by universalchine (Lloyd LRX
Plus, United Kingdom). Samples
on supports 50 mm apart, and the force applyingample in the
middle of the two supports. The speedce was set at 5 1 mm/min till
fracture occurred.ength, exural modulus and toughness data were
-
572 d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 3 0 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 570577
Table 1 Compositions of glasses used in the study.
Product nufa
BG particu xid L
Biostable gparticula
xid L
Table 2
Group
Control groC-d C-w
Non-silaniBS3-ns-d BS3-ns-w BS6-ns-d BS6-ns-w BS9-ns-d BS9-ns-w
BS12-ns-d BS12-ns-w
Silanized bBS3-s-d BS3-s-w BS6-s-d BS6-s-w BS9-s-d BS9-s-w
BS12-s-d BS12-s-w
Non-silaniBG3-ns-d BG3-ns-w BG6-ns-d BG6-ns-w BG9-ns-d BG9-ns-w
BG12-ns-d BG12-ns-w
Silanized bBG3-s-d BG3-s-w BG6-s-d BG6-s-w BG9-s-d BG9-s-w
BG12-s-d BG12-s-w
determinedtion of stre
T.S. = 3 2 b
T.S.: exure (N), l: di(mm); h: sa
Y.M. = StreStra
Y.M.: Fleat time of fDescription Ma
lates S53P4 glass system, particulate size3151000 m
Vivo
lasstes
Particulate size 9151000 m Vivo
Description of test groups used in this study (n = 8/group).
Storage
upsDry In water, 60 days
zed biostable glass ller groupsDry
In water, 60 days Dry In water, 60 days Dry In water, 60 days
Dry
In water, 60 days
iostable glass ller groupsDry In water, 60 days Dry In water, 60
days Dry In water, 60 days Dry In water, 60 days
zed bioactive glass ller groupsDry In water, 60 days Dry In
water, 60 days Dry In water, 60 days Dry
In water, 60 days
ioactive glass ller groupsDry In water, 60 days Dry In water, 60
days Dry In water, 60 days Dry In water, 60 days
as previously [13,14,2629]. Formulas for calcula-ngth, modulus
of elasticity and toughness were:
F L h2
ural strength (N/mm2 = MPa); F: load at time of fail-stance
between the supports (mm); b: sample widthmple thickness (mm).
ss
in= P l
3
4 b h3 dxural modulus (N/mm2, MN/m2, MPa, GPa); P: loadailure
(N); l: distance between the supports (mm);
b: sample wbending va
Toughness =
Toughnessamount of
Solubilitabsorptionmass loss aposites werby rst weigfor nine
dacturer Composition
td., Turku, Finland SiO2 53 wt%, Na2O 23 wt%,CaO 20 wt% and P2O5
4 wt%
td., Turku, Finland SiO2 70 wt%, Na2O 17 wt%and CaO 13 wt%
Description
Control, no llersControl, no llers
Biostable glass, 3%-wt, not silanized
Biostable glass, 3%-wt, not silanizedBiostable glass, 6%-wt, not
silanizedBiostable glass, 6%-wt, not silanizedBiostable glass,
9%-wt, not silanizedBiostable glass, 9%-wt, not silanizedBiostable
glass, 12%-wt, not silanizedBiostable glass, 12%-wt, not
silanized
Biostable glass, 3%-wt, silanizedBiostable glass, 3%-wt,
silanizedBiostable glass, 6%-wt, silanizedBiostable glass, 6%-wt,
silanizedBiostable glass, 9%-wt, silanizedBiostable glass, 9%-wt,
silanizedBiostable glass, 12%-wt, silanizedBiostable glass, 12%-wt,
silanized
Bioactive glass, 3%-wt, not silanizedBioactive glass, 3%-wt, not
silanizedBioactive glass, 6%-wt, not silanizedBioactive glass,
6%-wt, not silanizedBioactive glass, 9%-wt, not silanizedBioactive
glass, 9%-wt, not silanizedBioactive glass, 12%-wt, not
silanizedBioactive glass, 12%-wt, not silanized
Bioactive glass, 3%-wt, silanizedBioactive glass, 3%-wt,
silanizedBioactive glass, 6%-wt, silanizedBioactive glass, 6%-wt,
silanizedBioactive glass, 9%-wt, silanizedBioactive glass, 9%-wt,
silanizedBioactive glass, 12%-wt, silanizedBioactive glass, 12%-wt,
silanized
idth (mm); h: sample thickness (mm); d: highestlue (mm). f
0
d
(J/m3, N/m2, MN/m3, MPa); : amount of strain; f:stress at time
of failure; : amount of stress.y percentages were obtained by
subtracting the
percentages of the specimens from percentages offter drying. The
mass loss percentages of the com-e tested immediately after
three-point bending testhing the specimens wet (m3) and then drying
themys at 80 C and weighing again (m4). The weights
-
d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 3 0 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 570577 573
BS3-n s-w
BS6-n s-w
BS9-ns-w
BS12- ns-w
BS3-s-w
BS6-s- w BS9-s-w
BS12-s-w
BG3-ns-w
BG3-s- w
BG6-s- w
BG9-s-w
BG12-s-wC-w
1.2
1.25
1.3
1.35
1.4
1.45
1.5
1.55
1.6
1.65
1.7
1.75
1.8
1.85
D
wt-
% W
ater
abs
orp
on b
y da
y
Fig. 1
of the specrm they hsamples we
Mass loss%
m3: initial wweight (g).
Solubility percentages were calculated using the
followingformula:
(Solubility%) = (Mass loss%) (Water absorption%)
Statistical analysis was carried out with SPSS 15.0 forWindows
(SPSS Inc., Chicago, USA) package program. Waterabsorption results
were evaluated by Shapiro-Wilk test todemonstrate normal
distribution of the data. Differencesbetween groups were evaluated
by one-way ANOVA and Dun-nett T3 test (p < 0.05). Solubility,
exural strength, exuralmodulus, toughness results were evaluated by
Shapiro-Wilk.Differences between groups were evaluated by
KruskalWallisand MannWhitney tests (p < 0.05).
3. Results
The water absorption of composites is presented in and 2, and
weight gain in relation to storage time inin Figabsod BGller
e torouproupl groBG6-ns-w
BG9-ns-w
BG12- ns-w
ay-1 4 Day-2 1 Day-3 0 Day-4 5 Day-60
BS3- ns-w BS 6-ns-w BS9- ns-w BS 12-n s-wBS3-s -w BS6-s- w
BS9-s-w BS12-s- w
Figs. 1water water wt) anglass ferencller gonly gcontroBG3-ns-w
BG6- ns-w BG 9-ns-w BG1 2-n s-wBG3-s- w BG6 -s-w BG 9-s- w BG12-s-
wC-w
Weight gain of specimens in water by day.
imens were monitored during this period to con-ad dried
completely. Mass loss percentages of there then calculated by the
formula below:
=(
m4 m3m3
) 100
eight before solubility test (g); m4: last measured
had a tendnon-silanizportions ofstatisticallyweight of twith
excepwhich showfor more thvalues for Bday 30. Thewas
observBS12-ns-w
The soluFig. 3. Thens-w (0.98(0.34 0.03
Fig. 2 Water absorption values of sub-gr. 1. The highest and
lowest values observed in therption test were in groups BS12-s-w
(1.83 0.04%-12-ns-w (1.21 0.07%-wt). In the non-silanized
groups, 3%-wt groups showed no signicant dif- the control group
(p > 0.05). In silanized glasss, only BG3-s-w and BG6-s-w groups
were thes which showed signicant difference to theup (p < 0.05).
All in all, water absorption valuesency to decrease with increasing
proportions ofed glass ller, and to increase with increasing
pro-
silanized glass ller. These changes were found signicantly
different (p < 0.05). Generally, thehe specimens increased
during the 60 days periodtion of groups BG6-ns-w, BG9-ns-w,
BG12-ns-wed reduction in weight after being stored in wateran 30
days (Fig. 1), and thus, maximum absorptionG6-ns-w and BG9-ns-w
groups were observed on
BG12-ns-w groups highest water absorption valueed on day 21. The
BG3-s-w, BG6-s-w, BG9-s-w andgroups peak values were observed on
day 45.bilities of the different composites are given in
highest solubility value was observed in BG12- 0.03%-wt) and the
lowest value in BS12-s-w%-wt). Solubility values of biostable glass
ller
oups on day 60.
-
574 d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 3 0 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 570577
Fig. 3 Sol
groups exccomparisonller groupshowed sig(p < 0.05). Aing
proportto non-silasignicantl
Flexuralgroup (Fig. strength thmens, incrstrength. Hshowed sigof
the llernicant dif(p > 0.05) (Fi
Flexuraltion of glasilanizationsilanized g
Toughnemen groupglass ller ggroups wercontrol gro
4. Di
Materials tproperties,ductive or strength, amaterials tites of
bioafocused onglass and P
The cofeatures oftion in unfbetween tattained
[3componenparticles w
Special emphasis in the study was given to the behaviour
ofbioactive glass particles in the composites, as they are
subject
olut parter toissosite
thattive ]. It isted ttion
to e of for watrixo be al [3able ke coompnerathe p
on staed ttionals sithohoul
mated ble gluctuompof was sigs.
by e p
polyeneresultred, le, ing of subility percentages of sub-groups
on day 60.
ept BS12-s-w showed no signicant difference in to the control
group (p > 0.05). However, in the BG
s, most sub-groups except BG3-ns-w and BG9-s-wnicant differences
compared to the control groups a whole, solubility values decreased
with increas-ions of silanized glass and increased in
proportionnized BG glass, and these differences were foundy
different (p < 0.05).
strength was found to be highest in the control4), and dry
specimens were found to show higheran water stored specimens (p
< 0.05). In dry speci-eased quanties of glass llers lowered the
exuralowever, only the 12 wt% glass ller sub-groupsnicant
differences in wet specimens. Silanizations, on the other hand, was
not found to confer a sig-ference to the exular strength of the
compositesg. 4).
modulus was signicantly decreased by the addi-ss llers in all
specimens (p < 0.05). The ller
was observed with lower results than non-roups (Fig. 5).ss was
reduced by glass llers in all dry speci-
s, whereas in wet specimens, only 12%-wt biostableroups showed
reduction. Other wet specimen sub-e not signicantly different in
comparison to theup (p > 0.05) (Fig. 6).
scussion
hat combine biologically and clinically important
to dissgroupsin ordcles. Dcompoknowna nega[3436is
relaabsorprelatedvolumpaths the mhave tmaterivulnercan tatheir ccan
ge
In formedweightobservabsorpmateririals wller
stestedsilanizbiostabthe strtion. Cterms tion wller (Fcausedinto
thPMMA
In gtion rmeasuexamploadin such as the capability to provide an
osteocon-osteoinductive surface and long term retention ofre
desired in bone reconstructions. One group ofhat could provide such
properties may be compos-ctive glass and PMMA. Therefore the
present study
the characterization of composites of bioactiveMMA.ncept of
hybrid materials utilizing favourable
different constituent materials proposes a reduc-avourable
initial properties. However, integrationhe components of hybrid
materials has to be032]. For this purpose, organic and inorganicts
were bound reciprocally by coating glass llerith silanol groups by
hydrolysis of MPS-silane [33].
was found the silanizetection of tnetwork. Into have highThis
resultposition anglass has abioactive gcations. CaSiOSi
linkbridging oxions is dir[10,41,42].ion in aqueous environments.
In some compositeicles were coupled to the polymer matrix by
silane
slow down the leaching of the glass ller parti-lution of
bioactive glass in the polymer matrix ofis based on water
absorption to the matrix. It is
in immersed solutions high polymer solubility haseffect on the
physical properties of the material
also known that the hydrophobicity of a materialo its water
absorption and solubility [37,38]. Water
in a polymer matrix occurs by diffusion and it isthe amount of
ller content, as ller reduces thethe polymer matrix phase and
creates potentialater diffusion through the interphases between
and llers. Thus, water absorption and solubilitystudied in order
to understand the properties of a4,39]. Certain biopolymers and
bioactive glasses areto water absorption and solubility. These
materialsmponents from the immersed solution and leachonents to the
liquid. These leached componentste tissue reactions [17,40].resent
study, water absorption testing was per-
cumulative days to receive an understanding ofbilization. In the
water absorption test, it washat non-silanized glass ller groups
had lower
than silanized ller groups. Generally, ller loadedhowed lower
water absorption than control mate-ut llers. In principle, the
group with 12 wt% glassd have had the lowest water absorption of
theerials, but this was found only in the case of non-ioactive
glass llers. Higher water absorption withass llers may reect the
existence of minor gaps inre of the composite, which increase water
absorp-arison of silanized and non-silanized llers inater
absorption demonstrated that water absorp-lightly higher in the
groups with silanized glass1 and 2). This may be due to
polysiloxane networkssilanization and the tendency of water to
diffuseolysiloxane network more readily than into themer matrix.al,
solubility results were opposite to water absorp-s: where lower
water absorption values werehigher solubility values were observed,
as for
non-silanized glass ller groups. Increasing theilanized glass
llers, both bioactive and biostable,to decrease solubility. The
decreasing solubility ind glass ller groups can be attributed to
the pro-
he glass structure by the silane based polysiloxane addition,
the bioactive glass groups were observeder solubility than the
biostable glass groups (Fig. 3).
can be associated with the difference of the com-d structure of
the two types of glass. Biostable
tetrahedron structure resistant to reactions, whilelass has a
structure more open to reactions withtions in bioactive glass
disrupt the continuity ofs and this process results with formation
of non-ygen ions. The amount of non-bridging oxygen
ectly related to the bioactivity of bioactive glass
-
d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 3 0 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 570577 575
Fig. 4 Flexural strength values of sub-groups on day 60.
Discontinuity and stress transfer interruption in the mainmatrix
by cles by visca stronger been reporpolymer isreduces theof the
glassbe reduced
The longcal propertmost impociently reinFillers of hibetter
reinfllers [45]. strength anlus in dry sto the featwere
foundenvironme
Test specimens were subjected to a three-point bendingmediately
after the conclusion of the absorption test.ing ymerntai4.8 Mer,
nally lnda
werich hts
akenhe lationn thbrid
otheter d
proolylaller particles was prevented by saturating the parti-ous
acrylate using silane coupling agents to providebond between the
substrate and ller [36]. It hasted that the polymerization and
structure of the
not affected by MPS-silane [43]. In fact, silane amount of
monomer required for the saturation
ller. Thus, the adverse effects of monomers can [44].-term
function of a material depends on its physi-
ies, of which load-bearing capacity is clinically thertant.
Particulate llers in composites do not ef-force a material against
bending and tensile forces.gher aspect ratio, namely bers, have
considerablyorcing and toughening capabilities than particulateFrom
this perspective the decrease of transversed toughness and the
increase of transverse modu-pecimen groups were what was to be
expected dueures of glass llers. However, polymer properties
to have no change when immersed in an aqueousnt (Figs. 46).
test imAccordof polples coand 10HowevespeciISO staimenstest whin
weigwere t
In timplicagree oand hyon thebe bettissuesthat pFig. 5 Flexural
modulus values of sub-grto ISO 1567:1999 standards, transversal
strengths must be at least 65 MPa. In our study, sam-ning glass as
llers showed values between 70.3Pa, which is sufcient for ISO
standards (Fig. 4).ovel composite materials for clinical
applications,eachable llers, cannot necessarily be judged byrds.
After the three-point bending test the spec-e placed back in their
solutions for the solubilitywas carried out the same day.
Percentage changesdue to material loss in the three-point bending
test
into consideration in the solubility calculations.iterature,
there are various interpretations of thes of materials modied by
glass llers. Researcherse course of the physical degradation of
polylactidspolylactid materials with BG ller in vitro [36,46,47];r
hand, in vivo physical properties were found toue to bioactivity
and enhanced bonding to livingmoted by BGs [48]. Likewise, it has
been statedctids containing BG coupledby MPS-silane conferoups on
day 60.
-
576 d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 3 0 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 570577
roup
improved stivity propematerials hand not be irial
containincrease thtion of bethe particu
In this sticles was compared tsilanes ma
5. Co
The main
1. Accordinubility tin non-glass llsame tiever, soboth bio
2. Dry comwith incpropertiincreasi
3. The couthe resicaused leaching
Acknowl
This researInternationBiomateriaresearch is
m (w and Profed foked
r e n
llo Aarhi Toactiater Moritzaracbstraed 20oritzplan
udy. usa ne dmpoater Rssi SFig. 6 Toughness values of sub-g
trength, osteoblastic activation and osteoconduc-rties in vivo
[49]. According to our ndings, hybridave to be applied carefully
until bioactivity occurs,mplanted on load-bearing areas if the
hybrid mate-s over 12%-wt of glass ller. One alternative toe
strength of the composite could be the utiliza-r reinforcements of
high aspect ratio to reinforcelate ller composite [10].tudy, the
modication of polymers by glass par-investigated in vitro. Next,
our ndings should beo in vivo results and investigate more in
detail howy alter bioactivity of the bioactive glass.
nclusion
ndings obtained in this study are as follows:
g to the results of the water absorption and sol-ests, the
highest water absorption was observedsilanized BG groups.
Increasing the amount ofer loading decreased water absorption while
at theme increasing solubility. After silanization, how-
PrograAlfontTCBC. thankeis than
r e f e
[1] BaNbiM
[2] MChsuM
[3] MImst
[4] TubocoM
[5] Ro
lubility decreased with increasing proportions ofactive and
biostable glass.posite specimens showed lower physical
valuesreasing glass ller loading, whereas the exurales of
water-stored specimens did not alter withng glass proportions.pling
of glass ller particles with silane improvesstance of the composite
resin against weakeningwater and may protect bioactive glass llers
from.
edgements
ch was nancially supported by CIMO (Centre foral Mobility) and
it was carried out in Turku Clinicalls Centre - TCBC, University of
Turku, Finland. This
part of the BioCity Turku Biomaterials Research
Comparutile-sBiomed
[6] LindforKankargraft su2010;47
[7] WilsonLL, WilSingap
[8] AndersTurku,
[9] AndersJ, JuhanSiO2-NMed 19
[10] Zhang thesis.
[11] Ngangaporouss on day 60.
ww.biomaterials.utu.). Minttu Vigren, GenevieveHanna Mark are
thanked for their help with tests inssor Jukka Matinlinna
(University of Hong Kong) is
r sharing his silane studies with us. Timothy Wilsonfor
proofreading the manuscript.
c e s
M, Kokkari AK, Meretoja VV, Lassila LL, Vallittu PK,O.
Osteoblast proliferation and maturation on
ve ber-reinforced composite surface. J Mater Scied
2008;19(10):316977.
N, Vedel E, Ylnen H, Jokinen M, Hupa M, Yli-Urpo A.terisation of
bioactive glass coatings on titaniumtes produced using a CO2 laser.
J Mater Sci Mater04;15(7):78794.
N, Rossi S, Vedel E, Tirri T, Ylnen H, Aro H, et al.ts coated
with bioactive glass by CO2-laser, an in vivoJ Mater Sci Mater Med
2004;15(7):795802.SM, Peltola MJ, Tirri T, Lassila LV, Vallittu PK.
Frontalefect repair with experimental glass-ber-reinforcedsite with
bioactive glass granule coating. J Biomedes B Appl Biomater
2007;82(1):14955., Moritz N, Tirri T, Peltola T, Areva S, Jokinen
M, et al.
rison between sol-gel-derived anatase- andtructured TiO2
coatings in soft-tissue environment. J
Mater Res A 2007;82(4):96574.s NC, Hyvnen P, Nyyssnen M,
Kirjavainen M,e J, Gullichsen E, et al. Bioactive glass S53P4 as
bonebstitute in treatment of osteomyelitis. Bone(2):2128.
J. Bioactive glasses: clinical applications. In: Henchson J,
editors. An Introduction to Bioceramics, vol. 1.ore: World
Scientic; 1993.son O. The bioactivity of silicate glass. In: PhD
Thesis.Finland: bo Akademi; 1990.son H, Liu Guizhi, Karlsson KH,
Niemi L, Miettinenoja J. In vivo behaviour of glasses in
thea2O-CaO-P2O5-Al2O3-B2O3 system. J Mater Sci
Mater90;1(4):21927.D. In vitro characterization of bioactive glass.
In: PhD
Turku, Finland: bo Akademi; 2008. S, Zhang D, Moritz N, Vallittu
PK, Hupa L. Multi-layer
ber-reinforced composites for implants: in vitro
-
d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 3 0 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 570577 577
calcium phosphate formation in the presence of bioactiveglass.
Dent Mater 2012;28(11):113445.
[12] Cao W, Hench LL. Bioactive materials. Ceram
Int1996;22:493507.
[13] Sakaguchi RL, Powers JM, editors. Craigs restorative
dentalmaterials. 13th ed. Philadelphia, USA: Elsevier Inc.;
2012.
[14] Combe EC. Notes on dental materials. 6th ed.
ChurchillLivingstone; 1992.
[15] Laattala K, Huhtinen R, Puska M, Arstila H, Hupa L,Kellomki
M, et al. Bioactive composite for keratoprosthesisskirt. J
[16] Puska MproperBiomat
[17] Ruytersubstanenviron
[18] Vallittuused fodentur
[19] PeltolaAitasalrecons
[20] HautamOsteobglass c16859
[21] HeikkilPolymeformathydrox
[22] MatinliconvenTurku,
[23] MatinliAn intrdentist
[24] Mohsedispers1995;22
[25] PlueddUSA: Pl
[26] Vallittudentur1994;10
[27] Kanie Timpactwoven
[28] OBriened. Qui
[29] PowersManipu
[30] Laine ROrganiResear
[31] Mark JEOrgani585. Am
[32] Novak inorgan1993;5(
[33] Matinlinna JP, Vallittu PK. Bonding of resin composites
toetchable ceramic surfacesan insight review of thechemical aspects
on surface conditioning. J Oral Rehabil2007;34(8):62230.
[34] Kurtulmus H, Kumbuloglu O, Aktas RT, Kurtulmus A,Boyacioglu
H, Oral O, et al. Effects of saliva and nasalsecretion on some
physical properties of four different resinmaterials. Med Oral
Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2010;15(6):96975.
[35] Vallittu PK, Ruyter IE, Ekstrand K. Effect of water storage
onthe exural properties of E-glass and silica ber acrylic resin
mpoorind polethac08;24yaka
new dethacsaedechaiomeneshmmht- aater 2aham
the lnt Rnenterinrku, rnadomateris
Ibmicly(m09;33ousakammpomenwdeulemd dyrticuntal
i-Urprengtmen05;21ng JMrylicateriinzaMA-ntens 200inzane
ceoper01;55Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2011;4(8):17008.A, Kokkari AK,
Nrhi TO, Vallittu PK. Mechanical
ties of oligomer-modied acrylic bone cement.erials
2003;24(3):41725.
I. Physical and chemical aspects related toces released from
polymer materials in an aqueousment. Adv Dent Res 1995;9:3447.
PK. Comparison of two different silane compoundsr improving
adhesion between bres and acrylice base material. J Oral Rehabil
1993;20:5339.
MJ, Vallittu PK, Vuorinen V, Aho AA, Puntala A,o KM. Novel
composite implant in craniofacial bonetruction. Eur Arch
Otorhinolgol 2012;269(2):6238.ki M, Meretoja VV, Mattila RH, Aho
AJ, Vallittu PK.
last response to polymethyl methacrylate bioactiveomposite. J
Mater Sci Mater Med 2010;21(5):2. JT, Aho AJ, Kangasniemi I,
Yli-Urpo A.thylmethacrylate composites: disturbed boneion at the
surface of bioactive glass andyapatite. Biomaterials
1996;17(18):175560.nna JP. Silane chemistry aspects in sometional
and novel dental biomaterials. In: PhD thesis.Finland: University
of Turku; 2004.nna JP, Lassila LV, zcan M, Yli-Urpo A, Vallittu
PK.oduction to silanes and their clinical applications inry. Int J
Prosthodont 2004;17(2):15564.n NM, Craig RG. Effect of silanation
of llers on theirability by monomer systems. J Oral
Rehabil(3):1839.emann EP. Silane coupling agents. 2nd ed. New
York,enum Press; 1991.
PK, Lassila VP. Transverse strength and fatigue ofe
acrylic-glass ber composite. Dent Mater:11621., Fujii K, Arikawa H,
Inoue K. Flexural properties and
strength of denture base polymer reinforced withglass bers. J
Dent Mater 2000;16(2):1508.
WJ, editor. Dental materials and their selection. 4thntessence
Publishing Co.; 2009.
JM, Wataha JC. Dental Materials: Properties andlation. 10th ed.
Mosby; 2012.M, Sanchez C, Brinker CJ, Giannelis E,
editors.c/Inorganic Hybrid Materials, vol. 519. Materialsch
Society. Cambridge University Press; 1998., Lee CY-C, Bianconi PA,
editors. HybridcInorganic Composites. ACS Symposium Series,
vol.erican Chemical Society; 1995.
BM. Hybrid nanocomposite materials-betweenic glass and organic
polymers. Adv Mater6):42233.
co[36] Vu
rom20
[37] Haa m
[38] OymJ B
[39] DaDaligM
[40] GrofDe
[41] YlsinTu
[42] StBi
[43] Frsupo20
[44] MNacocepo
[45] Keanpade
[46] Ylstce20
[47] Yaacm
[48] ShPMcoRe
[49] Shbopr20site. Int J Prosthodont 1998;11(4):34050.en AM,
Dyer SR, Lassila LV, Vallittu PK. Effect of rigidymer ller on
mechanical properties of poly-methylrylate denture base material.
Dent Mater(5):70813.wa I, Akiba N, Keh E, Kasuga Y. Physical
properties ofenture lining material containing a uoroalkylrylate
polymer. J Prosthet Dent 2006;96:538.
H, Ruyter IE. Composites for use in posterior teeth:nical
properties tested under dry and wet conditions.d Mater Res
1986;20(2):26171.
G, Lippold C, Mischke KL, Varzideh B, Reinhardt KJ,aschke T, et
al. Polymerization characteristics ofnd auto-curing resins for
individual splints. Dent006;22(5):42633.
BS, Jones DW, Sutow EJ. An in vivo and in vitro studyoss of
plasticizer from soft polymer-gel materials. Jes
1991;70(5):8703.
H. Bone ingrowth into porous bodies made byg bioactive glass
microspheres. In: PhD Thesis.
Finland: bo Akademi; 2000. Z. Role of the glass phase in
bioactive glass-ceramics.erials 1992;13(5):31721., Cristofori D,
Riello P, Benedetti A. Encapsulation ofrometer-sized silica
particles by a thin shell ofethyl methacrylate). J Colloid
Interface Sci1(2):3515.
WF, Kobayashi M, Kitamura Y, Zeineldin IA,ura T. Effect of
silane treatment and different resinsitions on biological
properties of bioactive bonet containing apatite-wollastonite glass
ceramicr. J Biomed Mater Res 1999;47(3):33644.ans F, Van Dalen A,
Kleverlaan CJ, Feilzer AJ. Static
namic failure load of ber-reinforced composite andlate ller
composite cantilever resin-bonded xedprostheses. J Adhes Dent
2010;12(3):20714.o H, Lassila LV, Nrhi T, Vallittu PK. Compressiveh
and surface characterization of glass ionomerts modied by particles
of bioactive glass. Dent Mater(3):2019., Lu CS, Hsu YG, Shih CH.
Mechanical properties of
bone cement containing PMMA-SiO2 hybrid sol-gelal. J Biomed
Mater Res 1997;38(2):14354.to S, Nakamura T, Kokubo T, Kitamura
Y.based bioactive cement: effect of glass bead llert and
histological change with time. J Biomed Mater2;59(2):22532.to S,
Nakamura T, Kokubo T, Kitamura Y. Bioactivement: Effect of silane
treatment on mechanical
ties and osteoconductivity. J Biomed Mater Res(3):27784.
Bioactive glass particulate filler composite: Effect of coupling
of fillers and filler loading on some physical properties1
Introduction2 Materials and methods3 Results4 Discussion5
ConclusionAcknowledgementsReferences