See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/362121839

Short fiber-reinforced resin-based composites (SFRCs); Current status and

future perspectives

Article  in  Dental Materials Journal · July 2022

DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2022-080

CITATION READS

1 402

3 authors:

Abdulrahman Alshabib Carlos A Jurado

King Saud University University of Iowa
25 PUBLICATIONS   113 CITATIONS    95 PUBLICATIONS   327 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Akimasa Tsujimoto
Aichi Gakuin University
174 PUBLICATIONS   2,681 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Structural Properties’ Relationships in Some Dental Composites View project

Materials for Dentistry and Regenerative Medicine View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Carlos A Jurado on 23 July 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Dental Materials Journal 2022; : –

Review

Short fiber-reinforced resin-based composites (SFRCs); Current status and

future perspectives
Abdulrahman ALSHABIB1,2, Carlos A. JURADO3 and Akimasa TSUJIMOTO4,5

1
Department of Restorative Dentistry, King Saud University College of Dentistry, PJ8C+3HH, Riyadh 12372, Saudi Arabia
2
Engr. Abdullah Bugshan Research Chair for Dental & Oral Rehabilitation, King Saud University, Riyadh 11545, Saudi Arabia
3
Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center El Paso Woody L. Hunt School of Dental Medicine, 5001 El Paso Drive, El Paso, TX 79905, USA
4
Department of Operative Dentistry, University of Iowa College of Dentistry, 801 Newton Road, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA
5
Department of General Dentistry, Creighton University School of Dentistry, 2109 Cuming Street, Omaha, NE 68102, USA
Corresponding author, Akimasa TSUJIMOTO; E-mail: akimasa-tsujimoto@uiowa.edu

One technique for placing of resin-based composite for large posterior cavities is the use of short fiber-reinforced resin-based composite
(SFRC) to replace dentin in a biomimetic approach. As endurance under mastication cycles is a significant consideration in the
clinical success of resin-based composite posterior restorations, the use of SFRC as a base material may prevent restorative fracture
due to the fibers’ effectiveness in stopping cracks. This review article specifies the characteristics of SFRC and describes the major
underlying mechanisms of short fiber reinforcement for resin-based composite. Insights are further taken from laboratory studies
used to define the short fiber-related properties of resin-based composite and the performance of currently available materials,
focusing on aspects that are relevant to the reinforcement of resin-based composite. Finally, future standpoints on the development
of SFRCs with nano fibers and different resin monomers, and their role in digital dentistry, are discussed.

Keywords: Resin-based composite, Short fiber, Dental restoration

explanation for this is that composite restorations

INTRODUCTION
In order to place an ideal resin-based composite
restoration, it is essential to understand the risk factors
associated with molar tooth. The two most common causes
for the failure of large restorations in molar tooth are
bulk fracture and secondary caries1). A review of clinical
cases of composite restorations in posterior teeth carried
out between1996–2002 found that most restoration
failures in 0–5 years were due to restoration issues, such
as material choice or placement technique. For failures
in 6–17 years, bulk fracture and secondary caries were
the major cause for replacement of the restoration2). In
addition, a review assessing the durability of composite
restorations in adult posterior teeth also reported that
bulk fracture and secondary caries were major causes
of failure3). These results suggest that in composite
restorations in posterior teeth of any age or lifespan,
bulk fracture is one of the principal risks.
An interesting review was carried out of studies on
composite restorations in posterior teeth4). A comparison
was made between studies carried out in the period
1995–2005 and those carried out in the period 2006–
2016. In the first set of studies, 89.4% of the restorations
were reported to survive, against 86.9% in the second
period, showing just a small difference4). The authors
also reported a similar prevalence of secondary caries:
29.5% in the first period and 25.7% in the second period.
However, there was a significantly higher frequency
of composite fractures in the later period. A likely
Color figures can be viewed in the online issue, which is avail-
able at J-STAGE.
Received Apr 4, 2022: Accepted May 12, 2022
doi:10.4012/dmj.2022-080 JOI JST.JSTAGE/dmj/2022-080
were employed in larger cavities in this later period,
compared to 1995–2005. These findings highlight the
importance of developing a deeper understanding of the
fracture mechanisms that lead composites to fail; this
knowledge may promote their durability. At the least,
improvements need to be made in the strength of the
restorative, and much innovation in material properties
and proposed restorative techniques has been seen in
this area5).
A number of studies have proposed methods to
make large posterior restorations last longer and to
support the structure of the teeth that remains. One of
these attempts employed short fiber-reinforced resin-
based composite (SFRC) for substitute of dentin, while
replacing enamel with an outer layer of conventional
resin-based composite6,7). Tsujimoto et al. reported that
a SFRC has a significantly advanced fracture toughness
than conventional resin-based composite8). There is high
demand for materials that have a high fracture toughness
as they are less prone to cracking and crack propagation.
Tsujimoto et al. revealed that a SFRC has a different
microstructure and interfacial characteristics from
conventional filler particle reinforced resin composite
due to their fiber reinforcement9). There is therefore
potential in using SFRC as it has a high toughness and
is more similar to the dentin it replaces.
The purpose of this paper is to review the results
of efforts to improve the physical properties of SFRCs,
compare and discuss in depth the reinforcing effects of
short and nano fibers, and provide some fundamental
principles of the reinforcing mechanisms and biomimetic
2 Dent Mater J 2022;
aspects of these materials.
SHORT FIBER REINFORCEMENT FOR
RESIN-BASED COMPOSITE
SFRCs can be categorized as random discontinuous short
fiber-reinforced resin-based composites, in which the
fibers are oriented in planes or randomly10). Generally,
dental SFRCs include short or nano fibers and inorganic
filler particles as reinforcing components in a resin
matrix11).
Biomechanics assesses the mechanical responses
of biological structures to forces, such as stress and
deformation12). The biomechanics of a tooth-restoration
complex are affected by a number of factors, such as forces
arising in the dentition, tooth structure and morphology,
and the action of elements supporting the teeth, in
addition to differences between the physicomechanical
properties of tooth components and of the restorative
materials, and the interactions arising at the interface.
Several reports have found that in high load
bearing areas, such as cusps of first molars, resin-based
composite would not be an appropriate choice10,11). This
conclusion is due to the mismatch between the hardness
of the fillers and the resin matrix, so that forces will
be concentrated on the filler particles, leading to the
initiation of cracks within the resin matrix13). In order
to improve the mechanical properties of resin-based
composite, challenges have been completed to reinforce
the resin matrix with short fibers14). The short fibers
enhance the mechanical properties by functioning
principally as crack blocker, preventing crack initiation
and propagation8). This tactic was first reported as a
strengthening for polymethylmethacrylate, which later
found a different application in restorative dentistry15).
In addition, the stress produced by intence loads on the
restoration is better distributed when the resin matrix
is strengthened with short fibers15). It has also been
established that when combining both particles and
fibers as a method of reinforcement, improvements were
found for physical properties comparing to particulate
filler-reinforced resin-based composites6,8). Based on
this, several other features play an significant role in
securing the effectiveness of fiber reinforcement, such
as the type of fibers, orientation, distribution, aspect
ratio, and volume fraction, and also the nature of the
crosslinking at the interface of the fiber and the resin
matrix16).
Table 1 The most common used fibers with their properties
Fiber type
Carbon Excellent fatigue and tensile strength, color is a major limitation.
Ultra-high molecular
Adhesion to the resin matrix is questionable, limiting the reinforcement capacity.
weight polyethylene
Glass Good esthetic properties, adequate physical and mechanical properties
Hydroxyapatite Biocompatible, questionable fatigue properties
: –
In clinical dentistry, several fibers are used for
reinforcement; one example is carbon/graphite, which
has been used for direct and indirect fiber posts17).
However, the dark color of carbon limits its usage in
tooth-colored restorations. On the other hand, glass
fibers have promising esthetic properties, and have
been utilized as strengthening for direct restorative
materials. Electrical (E)-glass has a low cost, and thus
is used most frequently18). It offers chemical stability in
a pH range of 4–1119). It consists of 54.5 wt% SiO2, 14.5
wt% Al2O3, 17 wt% CaO, 4.5 wt% MgO, 8.5 wt% B2O3
and 0.5 wt% Na2O. The most frequently utilized fibers
and their features are given in Table 1.
SHORT FIBER-REINFORCEMENT RELATED
PROPERTIES
A number of factors influence the mechanical properties
of discontinuous SFRCs, either enhancing or impairing
them. Examples of these factors are the length,
orientation, the aspect ratio, loading and fiber-resin
matrix crosslinking16).
Aspect ratio and critical short fiber length
Aspect ratio and critical fiber length are closely related.
Aspect ratio has an effect on the reinforcing effectiveness
of the SFRC20). For the provision of actual reinforcement
of the resin-based composites in which it is included, it
is crucial that the fiber length exceeds the critical fiber
length. In most glass systems, this critical length is
around 50 to 150 times the diameter; this fiber length is
the shortest length that allows tensile failure of the fiber,
and reduces the likelihood of shear failure in the matrix
or at the interface20). Short fibers with a subcritical
length have significantly lower ability to reinforce
effectively. Such fibers are unable to achieve maximum
failure stress, and are more likely to exhibit deformation
of the matrix with low shear stress transfer. As a result,
these fibers behave as particulate fillers20).
Short fiber loading for resin-based composite
Short fiber loading is a measure of how many fibers a
material contains. Up to a point, fracture resistance
can be improved by increasing the loading of the fibers
embedded in a composite, but as the fibers are added
to the resin this raises the material’s viscosity, which
limits the number of fibers that can be incorporated.
Furthermore, a large number of fibers increases the
Properties
 Dent Mater J 2022; : – 3

chances of poor fiber wetting21), where the fibers cluster
together because they are not all successfully coated
(“wetted”) by the resin matrix. This increases the
incidence of voids within the resin, which can act as a
reservoir for oxygen22).
Fiber orientation
The fiber orientation within the resin-based composite
can be categorized as short discontinuous (random
or unidirectional) or long continuous (unidirectional
or bidirectional). When looking at the influence of the
fiber orientation within dental resin-based composites,
unidirectional fiber arrangements can be either
continuous or discontinuous. In this situation both
arrangements will show anisotropic properties; while
for discontinuous, random fibers, the properties are
isotropic. The Krenchel factor (Kθ) is used to describe the
efficiency of the reinforcement of FRC, loaded at various
levels23). If the fibers are unidirectional (all set in one
direction), FRC can be said to have Kθ=1 (100%) —the
maximum reinforcement level for cracks perpendicular
to the direction of the fibers (see Fig. 1A). Because of the
anisotropy produced, however, other loading directions
have Kθ=0 (see Fig. 1D). If the fibers are bidirectional
(the fibers are set perpendicular to one another), the
efficiency is then halved for a value of Kθ=0.5, thus
giving equal reinforcement in either direction, as well as
other orthotropic properties (see Fig. 1C). SFRCs which
are strengthened using randomly-oriented fibers have
Kθ=0.38 providing the materials are constrained within
planes, although in three-dimensional structures the
efficiency of reinforcement is lowered (Kθ=0.20) (see Fig.
1C)23). However, this reinforcement is independent of the
direction of the load or the resulting crack.
The placement of SFRC in a cavity may result in
changes in fiber orientation, which clinically impact
the alignment of fibers. For instance, the restorative
technique can contribute to fiber rearrangement from
a random orientation to a planar orientation, causing
anisotropic reinforcement. The length of the fibers
and size of the cavity influence the fiber arrangement.
When cavities have a smaller width than the length of
the fibers during composite placement, the fibers are
arranged in the cavity plane, leading to anisotropic
features. Multidirectional arrangements of the fibers
leading to isotropic properties are supported by shorter
fibers. Conversely, longer, millimeter-scale, fibers have
the potential to take up planar orientation, providing
anisotropic reinforcement.
The orientation of the fibers within the resin
matrix is of critical importance due to the isotropic or
the anisotropic reinforcement they provide. It is more
difficult to determine the orientation distribution of
discontinuous fibers than to do so for continuous fibers,
especially if the short fibers are oriented in a random
manner. The methods that are used for assessing the
fiber orientation include imaging techniques such as
optical microscopy9). A drawback of these imaging
methods is that the 3-dimensional orientation of the
fibers is projected onto a single 2-dimensional plane. This
could be resolved by providing sections of a sample cut
at different points and investigating each of them. For
example, a non-invasive technique using microcomputer
tomography scanning could be used to analyze the fiber
orientation in a 3-dimensional projection24).

Fig. 1 Reinforcing efficiency (Krenchel’s factor Kθ) of fibers with different orientations relative
to crack propagation.
A: Unidirectional fiber orientation with reinforcing capacity of 1.0 for a crack
perpendicular to the fibers, B: Bidirectional fiber orientation with reinforcing capacity of
0.5, C: Random fiber orientation with reinforcing capacity of 0.2 in 3D, D: Unidirectional
fiber orientation with reinforcing capacity of 0.0 for a crack parallel to the fibers
4 Dent Mater J 2022;
Short fiber-resin matrix interfacial crosslinking
With regard to clinical longevity, one of the key
characteristics is the level of interfacial crosslinking
between the short fibers and resin matrix. This can be
an issue because there can be significant differences in
deformation behavior between the two constituents. This
leads to high stress levels close to the interface between
the two materials25). If adhesion is weak, the mechanical
properties can be compromised; strong adhesion is
required for the material to possess high modulus and
strength. The majority of short fibers employed in dental
work are inorganic, and they generally form weak bonds
with organic resin matrices, dependent on intermolecular
forces of attraction26). The short fibers must therefore
be treated with a silane molecule in order to improve
the crosslinking at the interface of the fibers and resin
matrix25).
Fiber toughening mechanisms
Fiber toughening mechanisms rely on the fibers’
capability to inhibit crack initiation and propagation,
and to stretch, bridge cracks, and resist their opening
and further spreading. The first factor is that fibers force
cracks to take a longer path, as shown in Fig. 2. The
crack moves along the fiber until it finds a place where
the fiber fails, or for short fibers, reaches the end of the
fiber, and this disruption of the crack path inhibits crack
propagation. Other properties apply a closure force to the
crack itself27). Due to the stretchiness of the fibers, crack
blunting and crack bridging can take place. In crack
blunting, fibers give along the sides of the crack; this
extending near the crack tip during propagation blunts
the crack tip. This action subsequently lowers the stress
Fig. 2 Schematic of crack diversion in a fiber reinforced composite.
: –
concentration at the tip of the crack, thus slowing or
preventing further progression. Moreover, when a SFRC
fails, the fibers will tend to break at different points
along the length of the material. This not only creates
a complex crack path but also means that fibers need to
slide past each other in order for a crack to open up. This
absorbs energy, since there is usually a frictional force
resisting this ‘pull out’. These properties apply whenever
the direction of the fibers has a component perpendicular
to the direction of crack propagation, as illustrated in
Fig. 1. If the fibers are unidirectional and perpendicular
to the crack, the maximum reinforcement is achieved.
Randomly oriented fibers can therefore provide some
reinforcement against cracks in any direction.
PERFORMANCE OF COMMERCIALLY
AVAILABLE SFRCs
There are currently seven dental SFRCs available,
namely Alert (Pentron, Wallingford, CT, USA), Nulite
F (Nulite Systems International, Hornsby, Australia),
Restolux (Lee Pharmaceutical, South El Monte, CA,
USA), everX Posterior (GC, Tokyo, Japan), everX flow
(GC), NovoPro Universal (Nanova, Columbia, MO, USA),
and NovoProFlow (Nanova) (Table 2).
Low aspect ratio SFRCs
Two of these products, Alert and Nulite F, were
evaluated clinically by van Dijken28), who observed that
both are linked to non-uniform fiber distribution and
surface roughness leading to progressive wear. Van
Dijken highlighted differences between the materials
and suggested that these are associated with the size
 Dent Mater J 2022; : – 5

and quantity of fibers, their geometry, and the fiber-
resin matrix interfacial crosslinking29). Restolux has
recently been withdrawn from use; however, several
studies demonstrate its behavior in vitro. Good fatigue
resistance is enabled by the presence of fibers, although
the length of the fibers was not sufficient for any
improvement in mechanical properties29,30).
Alert, Nulite, and Restolux all have lower aspect
ratio with fiber lengths varying between 60–200 μm and
diameters from 6–15 μm (Table 2). This could explain
their limited reinforcing capability.
High aspect ratio millimeter scale SFRCs
Garoushi et al. demonstrated that in a high aspect
ratio glass fiber reinforced composite (consisting of
22.5 wt% short E-glass fibers, 22 wt% dimethacrylate-
PMMA resin matrix, and 55% SiO2 filler particles), there
was a notable improvement in flexural strength when
compared to a non-fiber filled resin composite10). Other
reports confirmed this and showed improvements in the
composites’ physical properties11). Based on these positive
findings, GC developed two commercially available
SFRCs (everX Posterior; everX Flow). These products
comprise short E-glass fibers and particulate barium
glass fillers. The average fiber diameter is 17 μm and the
length ranges from 1,300–2,000 μm for everX Posterior
in a Bis-GMA, TEGDMA, and PMMA matrix (Fig. 3),
and 200–300 µm with a diameter of 6 µm for everX Flow
in a Bis-EMA, TEGDMA, and UDMA matrix8.19.31).
Resistance to crack initiation and propagation was
confirmed in both everX Posterior and in everX Flow,
clearly due to the properties of the short fibers and resin
matrix. The fibers in both materials are longer than the
critical fiber length32) and therefore more efficient in

Table 2 Commercially available short fiber-reinforced resin-based composites

Fiber Fiber Aspect Filler

Material Filler type Manufacturer
length diameter ratio loading wt%

Crushed and Pentron, Wallingford, CT,

Alert 60–80 µm 6–10 µm 6–13 84%
chopped glass fiber USA

Micro-rod glass Nulite System International,

Nulite F 150–200 µm 9 µm 16–22 83%
fiber Hornsby, Australia

Chopped glass Lee Pharmaceutica,

Restolux 80–20 µm 10–15 µm 5–12 85%
fiber South El Monte, CA, USA

everX
1,300–2,000 µm 17 µm 76–118 E-Glass fiber 74.2% GC, Tokyo, Japan
Posterior

everX Flow 200–300 µm 6 µm 33–50 E-Glass fiber 70.0% GC

NovaPro Hydroxyapatite Nanova, Columbia,

N/A N/A N/A 77%
Universal fiber MO, USA

Hydroxyapatite
NovaFlow N/A N/A N/A 77% Nanova
fiber

A B

Fig. 3 A: Optical microscopic images of randomly oriented short glass fibers in a resin-based
composite (everX Posterior).
B: Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images, obtained in back scattered electrons
mode (×50), of extracted short glass fibers from fiber reinforced resin composite (everX
Posterior).
6 Dent Mater J 2022;
A B
Fig. 4 A: Optical microscopic images of randomly oriented hydroxyapatite fibers in a resin-based
composite (Novopro Universal).
B: SEM images (×3,000) of extracted hydroxyapatite fiber bundles from a fiber reinforced
resin composite (Novopro Universal).
transferring stress throughout the matrix. According
to the Instructions for Use, everX Posterior and everX
Flow should only be utilized as dentin replacements and
so the outer layer must be covered by a conventional
resin-based composite. A case report has shown that
an endodontically treated tooth can be aesthetically
restored with a flowable SFRC combined with ceramic
restorations33). A recent study reported a high level of
water sorption and volumetric changes in everX Posterior
when compared to a broad range of materials34). When
short fibers are exposed during the finalizing process
of the restoration, through cracks in the composite, the
transport of saliva and water along the interface is much
higher than diffusion through the resin matrix because
of the capillary effect of the fiber.
High aspect ratio nanometer scale SFRCs
Nanoscale short fibers are expected to outperform
microscale fibers as the reinforcement material of choice
for resin-based composites. A major advantage of this
arrangement is the high strength of the nanofibers, which
will provide additional support for the resin composite
in terms of physical and mechanical properties, while
still acting as a stopper for any crack initiation or
propagation.
Due to the biocompatibility of hydroxyapatite,
researchers have been able to utilize hydroxyapatite
as a reinforcement in resin-based composite. It could
be employed as particle fillers or as fibers. Chen et al.
have found that, when using hydroxyapatite nano fibers
with high aspect ratios of from 600–800, significant
improvements were noticed in the biaxial flexural
strength with 10 wt% hydroxyapatite nanofibers35).
However, the authors noticed that increasing the load
of hydroxyapatite nanofibers up to 40 wt% negatively
affected the mechanical performance. They attributed
this outcome to the clustering of the nanofibers within
the dental resin and therefore concluded that beyond a
loading limit (10 wt%), further loading of the resin with
the nanofibers would have a negative influence35).
: –
Given the evidence of the positive influence of
nanofibers on resin-based composites35), a nanohybrid
resin-based composite reinforced with hydroxyapatite
nanofibers (NovoPro Universal) was recently introduced
onto the market by Nanova (Fig. 4). However, a recent
study looking into the efficacy of the reinforcement
provided by nano-hydroxyapatite fibers found that
short (millimeter scale) E-glass fiber reinforced resin-
based composite had significantly higher fracture
toughness14).
APPLICATION OF SFRCs FOR CAD/CAM
DENTISTRY
In computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing
(CAD/CAM) dentistry, worries over polymerization
shrinkage can be mitigated by using pre-polymerized
resin-based composites36). Through industrial
manufacturing, control can be exerted over the
composite’s fabrication and polymerization, meaning
that the results are consistent, and the issues of voids
and contamination do not exist as they would in direct
application37). Industrial processes can also enhance the
physical properties of resin-based composites, for example
by using high pressure and high temperature with CAD/
CAM resin-based composite blocks37). Restorations made
with CAD/CAM resin-based composite blocks do not
possess as good mechanical properties as ceramics/glass-
ceramics, but their benefits are that they are amenable
to direct intraoral repair, and they are less expensive37).
Trinia (Shofu, Kyoto, Japan) is an innovative
fiber-reinforced resin-based composite for CAD/CAM
applications. It has been described as a multi-layer
material composed of a multidirectional interlacing of
fiber glass and resin. The only information available
about Trinia is that provided by the manufacturer, who
states that its flexural strength is 393 MPa, its fracture
toughness (K) is 9.7 MPa·m and its elastic modulus
is 18.8 GPa. This flexural strength means that Trinia
therefore has potential for use in the molar tooth of the
 Dent Mater J 2022;
large cavity. However, further research incorporating
long-term clinical studies is required in order to
independently define its characteristics and whether or
not it is suitable for restorations in molar tooth.
FUTURE PERSPECTIVES ON SFRCs
Machinable SFRCs are currently attracting interest
as with CAD/CAM, which makes it possible to manage
the production, orientation, impregnation, and
polymerization of the fibers. This should enable the
enhancement of the physical properties of the material.
Although the claims made by Shofu regarding Trinia’s
properties still need to be substantiated, they indicate
that the material may be suitable for utilization in CAD/
CAM restorative dentistry. The characteristics of this
new material may mean that it is able to bridge the
gap between CAD/CAM resin composites and reinforced
ceramic blocks.
Finally, it is worth considering that, because there
is an extremely large number of possible combinations
of resin matrix and fibers in SFRCs, the majority of
studies have examined the effect of changing just
one component, assuming there was no change in the
interactions between the two. From this perspective,
there may be advantages in having low shrinkage resin
monomers replace the organic matrix in SFRC. The
reduction of polymerization shrinkage may reduce the
stress imposed on the matrix-fiber interface during
polymerization, leading to better bonding there, and
improved crack resistance with the same fibers.
These interactions may also be important in the
context of innovations in 3D printing. These may allow
the control of the relative orientation of fibers and the
creation of layers, which will lead to the development
of a new generation of SFRCs. This could, again, lead
to substantial improvements in the mechanics of the
composite with no change in the component materials.
These SFRCs will need to be able to fulfil the need for
restorations that are faster, more accurate, and less
costly to apply than CAD/CAM based materials.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Dr. Akimasa Tsujimoto is a consultant of Ultradent
Products.
REFERENCES
1) Opdam NJ, van de Sande FH, Bronkhorst E, Cenci MS,
Bottenberg P, Pallesen U, et al. Longevity of posterior
composite restorations: a systematic review and meta-
analysis. J Dent Res 2014; 93: 943-949.
2) Brunthaler A, König F, Lucas T, Sperr W, Schedle A.
Longevity of direct resin composite restorations in posterior
teeth: A review. Clin Oral investig 2003; 7: 63-70.
3) Dagerhamn J vDJ, Naimi-Akbar A, Sandborgh-Englund G,
Tranæus S, Nilsson M. Longevity of posterior resin composite
restorations in adults —A systematic review. J Dent 2015; 43:
934-954.
4) Alvanforoush N, Palamara J, Wong R, Burrow M. Comparison
between published clinical success of direct resin composite
: – 7
restorations in vital posterior teeth in 1995–2005 and 2006–
2016 periods. Aust Dent J 2017; 62: 132-145.
5) Ferracane JL. Resin-based composite performance: are there
some things we can’t predict? Dent Mater 2013; 29: 51-58.
6) Lassila L, Keulemans F, Sailynoja E, Vallittu PK, Garoushi
S. Mechanical properties and fracture behavior of flowable
fiber reinforced composite restorations. Dent Mater 2018; 34:
598-606.
7) Lassila L, Sailynoja E, Prinssi R, Vallittu PK, Garoushi S.
Fracture behavior of Bi-structure fiber-reinforced composite
restorations. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2020; 101:
103444.
8) Tsujimoto A, Barkmeier WW, Takamizawa T, Latta MA,
Miyazaki M. Mechanical properties, volumetric shrinkage
and depth of cure of short fiber-reinforced resin composite.
Dent Mater J 2016; 35: 418-424.
9) Tsujimoto A, Barkmeier WW, Takamizawa T, Latta
MA, Miyazaki M. Bonding performance and interfacial
characteristics of short fiber-reinforced resin composite in
comparison with other composite restoratives. Eur J Oral Sci
2016; 124: 301-308.
10) Garoushi S, Lassila LV, Tezvergil A, Vallittu PK. Load
bearing capacity of fibre-reinforced and particulate filler
composite resin combination. J Dent 2006; 34: 179-184.
11) Garoushi S, Vallittu PK, Lassila LV. Fracture resistance of
short, randomly oriented, glass fiber-reinforced composite
premolar crowns. Acta Biomater 2007; 3: 779-784.
12) Jurado CA, Mourad F, Trevino DAC, Gouveia DN, Hyer J,
Elgreatly A, et al. Comparison of full and partial coverage
crowns with CAD/CAM leucite reinforced ceramic blocks on
fracture resistance and fractographic analysis. Dent Mater J
2022; 41: 295-301.
13) Drummond JL. Degradation, fatigue, and failure of resin
dental composite materials. J Dent Res 2008; 87: 710-719.
14) Alshabib A, Silikas N, Watts DC. Hardness and fracture
toughness of resin-composite materials with and without
fibers. Dent Mater 2019; 35: 1194-1203.
15) Vallittu PK, Sevelius C. Resin-bonded, glass fiber-reinforced
composite fixed partial dentures: A clinical study. J Prosthet
Dent 2000; 84: 413-418.
16) Lassila L, Keulemans F, Vallittu PK, Garoushi S.
Characterization of restorative short-fiber reinforced dental
composites. Dent Mater J 2020; 39: 992-999.
17) Signore A, Benedicenti S, Kaitsas V, Barone M, Angiero F,
Ravera G. Long-term survival of endodontically treated,
maxillary anterior teeth restored with either tapered or
parallel-sided glass-fiber posts and full-ceramic crown
coverage. J Dent 2009; 37: 115-121.
18) Zhang M, Matinlinna JP. E-glass fiber reinforced composites
in dental applications. Silicon 2012; 4: 73-78.
19) Garoushi S, Sailynoja E, Vallittu PK, Lassila L. Physical
properties and depth of cure of a new short fiber reinforced
composite. Dent Mater 2013; 29: 835-841.
20) Vallittu PK. High-aspect ratio fillers: Fiber-reinforced
composites and their anisotropic properties. Dent Mater
2015; 31: 1-7.
21) Shouha P, Swain M, Ellakwa A. The effect of fiber aspect ratio
and volume loading on the flexural properties of flowable
dental composite. Dent Mater 2014; 30: 1234-1244.
22) Fonseca RB, de Almeida LN, Mendes GA, Kasuya AV,
Favarao IN, de Paula MS. Effect of short glass fiber/filler
particle proportion on flexural and diametral tensile strength
of a novel fiber-reinforced composite. J Prosthodont Res 2016;
60: 47-53.
23) Norman DA, Robertson RE. The effect of fiber orientation
on the toughening of short fibr-reinforced polymers. J Appl
Polym Sci 2003; 90: 2740-2751.
24) Li Y, Chi Y, Han S, Zhao C, Miao Y. Pore-throat structure
characterization of carbon fiber reinforced resin matrix
 8 Dent Mater J 2022;
composites: Employing micro-CT and avizo technique. PLoS
One 2021; 16: e0257640.
25) Matinlinna JP, Lung CYK, Tsoi JKH. Silane adhesion
mechanism in dental applications and surface treatments: A
review. Dent Mater 2018; 34: 13-28.
26) Khan AS, Azam MT, Khan M, Mian SA, Ur Rehman I.
An update on glass fiber dental restorative composites: A
systematic review. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl 2015;
47: 26-39.
27) Kim SH, Watts DC. Effect of glass-fiber reinforcement and
water storage on fracture toughness (KIC) of polymer-based
provisional crown and FPD materials. Int J Prosthodont
2004; 17: 318-322.
28) van Dijken JW, Sunnegårdh-Grönberg K. Fiber-reinforced
packable resin composites in Class II cavities. J Dent 2006;
34: 763-769.
29) Al-Turki LI, Drummond JL, Agojci M, Gosz M, Tyrus JM, Lin
L. Contact versus flexure fatigue of a fiber-filled composite.
Dent Mater 2007; 23: 648-653.
30) Drummond JL, Lin L, Al-Turki LA, Hurley RK. Fatigue
behaviour of dental composite materials. J Dent 2009; 37:
321-330.
31) Lassila L, Sailynoja E, Prinssi R, Vallittu P, Garoushi S.
Characterization of a new fiber-reinforced flowable composite.
View publication stats
: –
Odontology 2019; 107: 342-352.
32) Lassila L, Garoushi S, Vallittu PK, Sailynoja E. Mechanical
properties of fiber reinforced restorative composite with two
distinguished fiber length distribution. J Mech Behav Biomed
Mater 2016; 60: 331-338.
33) Jurado CA, Tinoco JV, Tsujimoto A, Barkmeier W, Fischer
N, Markham M. Clear matrix use for composite resin core
fabrication. Int J Esthet Dent 2020; 15: 108-117.
34) Garoushi S, Vallittu PK, Lassila L. Mechanical properties
and wear of five commercial fibre-reinforced filling materials.
Chin J Dent Res 2017; 20: 137-143.
35) Chen L, Yu Q, Wang Y, Li H. BisGMA/TEGDMA dental
composite containing high aspect-ratio hydroxyapatite
nanofibers. Dent Mater 2011; 27: 1187-1195.
36) Jurado CA, Tsujimoto A, Watanabe H, Fischer NG, Hasslen
JA, Tomeh H, et al. Evaluation of polishing systems for CAD/
CAM polymer-infiltrated ceramic-network restorations. Oper
Dent 2021; 46: 219-225.
37) Tsujimoto A, Barkmeier WW, Takamizawa T, Latta MA,
Miyazaki M. Influence of thermal cycling on flexural
properties and simulated wear of computer-aided design/
computer-aided manufacturing resin composites. Oper Dent
2017; 42: 101-110.