Effect of Different Design Preparations on the Flexural

and Fracture Strength of Fiber-Reinforced Composite Fixed

Partial Dentures: An In Vitro Study
Gulshan Kumar, BDS, MDS,1, Veena Jain, BDS, MDS,2 R. K. Pandey, BSc, Mtech, Phd,3 &
Manju Gadwal, BDS4
1
Ex-Junior resident, Division of Prosthodontics, Center for Dental Education and Research (C.D.E.R), All India Institute of Medical Sciences
(A.I.I.M.S), New Delhi, India
2
Associate Professor, Division of Prosthodontics, Center for Dental Education and Research (C.D.E.R), All India Institute of Medical Sciences
(A.I.I.M.S), New Delhi, India
3
Professor, Department of Applied Mechanics, Indian Institute of Technology, New Delhi, India
4
Lecturer, Department of Periodontics, Laxmi Bhai Institute of Dental Sciences, Patiala, Punjab, India

Keywords
Fiber-reinforced composites; fixed partial
dentures.
Correspondence
Gulshan Kumar, BDS, MDS, Senior Resident
Specialty of Prosthodontics, Oral Health
Sciences Centre, Post Graduate Institute of
Medical Education and Research (PGIMER),
Chandigarh, Pin 160012, India.
E-mail: gulshan_smilecare@yahoo.co.in
Abstract
Purpose: To determine and compare the flexural and fracture strength of three-unit
fiber-reinforced composite (FRC) fixed partial dentures (FPDs) using three abutment
design preparations.
Material and Methods: The flexural and fracture strength of three-unit FRC FPDs
were evaluated using three design preparations of the abutments (conventional full
crown [group A], box-shaped [group B], and tub-shaped [group C]). Thirty three-unit
FRC FPDs were fabricated (10 specimens per group) for the replacement of missing
mandibular first molars and were adhesively luted to extracted human teeth. The
flexural and fracture strength were determined using a universal testing machine with
a steel loading pin of 20 mm diameter with a 3-mm-diameter hardened circular tip.

Presently, Senior Resident Prosthodontics,
Oral Health Sciences Centre, Post Graduate
Institute of Medical Education and Research
(PGIMER), Chandigarh, India.
This research article is based on a thesis
submitted to the faculty of All India Institute
of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
of Masters in Dental Surgery (Prosthodontics,
C.D.E.R.).
The authors deny any conflicts of interest.
Accepted November 13, 2013
doi: 10.1111/jopr.12181
Each specimen was evaluated under SEM to determine mode of failure.
Results: Mean fracture strength for group A was 820.00 56.51 N, group B was
536.94 65.62 N, and group C was 501.24 66.71 N. The highest mean flexural
strength was found in group A (68.33 4.71 MPa), followed by group B (44.74
5.46 MPa) and lowest in group C (41.77 5.56 MPa). The SEM evaluation showed
partial or complete debonding of veneering composite from fiber framework, leaving
intact fiber frameworks in all the specimens.
Conclusion: Full-coverage design had significantly higher flexural and fracture
strengths than box and tub-shaped designs. Since both values were noted to be in
the order of masticatory stresses, the full coverage design is a good alternative for the
replacement of missing molar teeth; however, the framework veneering composite in-
terface was the weakest phase of FRC FPDs, thus indicating that further improvement
in veneering composite or fiber framework is needed to improve the compatibility of
veneering composite with that of fiber framework for long-term clinical implications.

In the past two decades, the reinforcement of resin-based mate-
rials with different types of fibers has been introduced into den-
tistry to improve the mechanical properties of polymer-based
resin restorative materials.1,2 Such improvements have led to
the development of fiber-reinforced composite (FRC) material.
With the introduction of FRC technology it has been possible
to fabricate metal-free fixed partial dentures (FPDs) by using
a fiber-reinforced framework instead of a metal framework.3
These metal-free FRC FPDs are not only esthetic, but are also
conservative, as they bond adhesively to tooth structure.4 The
repair of FRC FPDs has also shown good results with regard
to appearance as well as fracture strength.5 FRC consists of
suitable fibers held together by a resinous matrix.6 These fibers
provide overall good mechanical properties, including better
strength-to-weight ratio, which is superior to most of the al-
loys used in FPDs.7 FRC composites have been described in

Journal of Prosthodontics 24 (2015) 5763 

C 2014 by the American College of Prosthodontists 57
Flexure and Fracture Strength of 3-Unit FRC FPDs
the literature according to the type of fibers, orientation of
fibers, and the presence or absence of impregnation. Various
types of fibers used for reinforcement of resin are carbon,
Kevlar, polyethylene, and glass fibers.8,9 These fibers are ei-
ther unidirectional or woven in different orientations. Glass
fibers have often been used for laboratory prostheses because
of their better esthetics, better bonding, and lesser flexibility,
as compared to other types of fibers. Glass fibers are avail-
able in both hand- (Fiberkor; Pentron Clinical, Wallingford
Center, CT) and machine-fabricated (Vectris; Ivoclar Vivadent,
Schaan, Liechtenstein) forms. Machine-fabricated systems use
vacuum/pressure devices to adapt the preimpregnated FRC,
hence providing more fibers per unit area in the restoration.5
Generally, FRCs have been used for three-unit FPDs for the
replacement of a single premolar or molar when the intra-
abutment span does not exceed 15 mm.10
Mechanical properties like fracture and flexural strength de-
pend upon types of fibers, matrix, the quality of fibers, adhesion
between the fiber and resin matrix, and physical properties of
fibers. The strength of FRC FPDs is also influenced by the
preparation design, thickness of material, and the properties of
the luting agent as well as the elastic modulus of the supporting
substructure.11 Very few studies have investigated the effect of
design preparation on the mechanical properties of FRC FPDs.
Therefore, this study was undertaken to evaluate and compare
the effect of different design preparations on the flexural and
fracture strength of FRC FPDs.
Materials and methods
To conduct this in vitro study, 60 extracted, caries- and attrition-
free, similar-sized human teeth (30 mandibular molars, 30
mandibular premolars) were selected and stored in deionized
water at room temperature until use.12 A total of 30 speci-
mens were prepared, each having one premolar and one molar,
mounted 10 mm apart in Poly (methyl methacrylate) (RR-cold
cure; DPI, Mumbai, India) using a metal jig.13 The specimens
were divided into three groups on the basis of abutment prepa-
ration designs (group A [full coverage], group B [box-shaped],
group C [tub-shaped]) with 10 specimens in each group. An
acrylic tooth with standard pontic dimensions was positioned in
each specimen. An addition silicone putty (Reprosil; Dentsply
Caulk, Milford, DE) index was made for each specimen, to be
used as a guide for tooth preparation and final veneering proce-
dures (Figs 1AC). The details of the design preparation were
as follows:
Group AConventional design preparation: axial reduction of
1.2 mm, occlusal reduction of 2 mm, and 1-mm-wide heavy
chamfer finish line (Fig 2A).
Group BBox-shaped design preparation: occlusal dovetail
and proximal box. Occlusal dovetail in molars was 4 mm
(width) 6 mm (length) 2.5 mm (depth) and in premolars
was 4 mm (width) 4 mm (length) 2.5 mm (depth). The
proximal box was 1 mm apical to the isthmus floor and 1 mm
deep axially (Fig 2B).
Group CTub-shaped design preparation: similar to occlusal
dovetail with a box shape and no proximal step. The occlusal
dovetail in molars was 4 mm (width) 6 mm (length) 2.5
58 Journal of Prosthodontics 24 (2015) 5763 
Kumar et al
mm (depth), and in premolars was 4 mm (width) 4 mm
(length) 2.5 mm (depth; Fig 2C).
Tooth preparation impressions were made with addition sili-
cone (Reprosil) impression material (Fig 1D). All impressions
were poured in type IV die stone (Kalrock; Kalabhai Karson
Pvt., Mumbai, India), and wax patterns with standard pontic
dimensions (3.5 mm 3.5 mm) were made using blue inlay
wax (Bego, Bremen, Germany) to fabricate the FRC frame-
work. Silicone putty matrices were formed around the wax
patterns. Then wax patterns were removed, and putty matrices
were placed back on the models (Fig 3).
E-glass FRC (Vectris; Ivoclar Vivadent) was used to fabri-
cate frameworks for all the groups, and particulate composite
(Adoro SR; Ivoclar Vivadent) was used for veneering the frame-
works. To form the framework, two layers of unidirectional fiber
bundles (Vectris Pontic; Ivoclar Vivadent) were polymerized,
over which woven FRC (Vectris Frame; Ivoclar Vivadent) was
adapted and polymerized in a Vectris curing unit (Vectris VS1;
Ivoclar Vivadent). The final FRC frameworks were finished
with margins 1 to 2 mm short of the finish line. A wetting agent
(Vectris wetting agent; Ivoclar Vivadent) was applied to all the
external surfaces of finished frameworks, which were then lay-
ered in increments with particulate composite using previously
made putty indices to provide the desired contours and to stan-
dardize the restoration dimensions (connectors: 4 mm [width]
4 mm [height], pontics: 10 mm [width] 6 mm [height]). Each
layer was initially polymerized in a halogen light source (Quick;
Ivoclar Vivadent) for 20 seconds and then polymerized in an
SR Adoro curing unit (Lumamat 100; Ivoclar Vivadent) for 25
minutes. The inner surfaces of all finished FRC FPDs were
silanated (Monobond S; Ivoclar Vivadent) and cemented us-
ing dual-cure resin cement (RelyX ARC; 3M ESPE, St. Paul,
MN; Fig 4). After cementation, the specimens were stored in
distilled water for 24 hours at room temperature before testing.
Experimentation
All specimens were tested under a universal testing machine
(Zwick Z250; Ulm, Germany) by subjecting them to flexural
loading. The load was applied through a steel loading pin of
20 mm diameter with a 3-mm-diameter hardened circular tip.
A 1 mm/min loading speed was maintained throughout the
test. Tin foil was placed between the loading pin and the tooth
surface to avoid development of local stresses. The loading
continued till the initial failure was noticed in the specimen,
demonstrated by at least two of three criteria (i.e., sharp decline
in load/displacement curve, visible crack, or audible emission).
The fracture strength was calculated using the load at which
a drop-in was observed after initial failure. Load-deflection
diagrams were recorded for each specimen from which flexural
strength ( ) was calculated using the following equation:
3 FMax l
=
2 b h2
where FMax = maximum load point, l = effective span length,
b = width, and h = height/depth.
In the above equation, the values of l, b, and h were 20 mm,
10 mm, and 6 mm, respectively. The effective span length was
the total mesiodistal length of frameworks.
C 2014 by the American College of Prosthodontists
Kumar et al Flexure and Fracture Strength of 3-Unit FRC FPDs

Figure 1 (A). Mounted first premolar and second molar with standard dimension artificial acrylic resin tooth as pontic; (B) silicone putty index;
(C) final tooth preparation for full-coverage design verified with silicone index; (D) impression of the prepared abutments.

Figure 2 Tooth preparation designs:(A) full-coverage tooth preparation; (B) box-shaped tooth preparation; and (C) tub-shaped tooth preparation.

All tested specimens were first examined visually to see the
type of failure and then examined under scanning electron mi-
croscopy (Leo 435 VP; Zeis Leica, Oberkochen, Germany) to
investigate the surface morphology and the mode of failure at
the fractured sites of each specimen under low vacuum. All
specimens were examined in the region of connector, pontic,
retainer, and abutment for fracture line, crack, or debonding.
Mode of failure was categorized as follows: fracture in the ve-
neer (cohesive), fracture in the framework (cohesive), fracture
in the tooth (cohesive), partial separation of veneer from the
framework (adhesive), complete separation of veneer from the
framework (adhesive), decementation of retainer, and combi-
nation of any of above.
Mean and standard deviations were used to evaluate the
fracture and flexural strength. To compare the mean values of
fracture and flexure strength among the three groups, one-way
ANOVA was used with post hoc analysis using Bonferroni test.
p-values less than 5% level of significance were regarded as
significant results. All statistical analysis was performed using
STATA 9.0 software (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX).
Results
One-way ANOVA showed that the mean fracture strength and
flexure strength were significantly different among the groups
(Tables 1 and 2). The Bonferroni post hoc test revealed that
mean fracture strength for group A (full coverage) was 820.00
56.51 N, which was significantly higher than groups B (box
preparation) and C. The highest flexural strength was recorded
for group A, which was significantly higher than groups B and
C (Table 3).
Visual inspection of all the specimens revealed failure at the
interface of the material and the overlying veneering compos-
ite. The SEM examination of all the specimens showed three
types of failures of FRC FPDs (Fig 5) that is, (i) complete
debonding at the fiber/veneer interface resulting in separation of
the whole veneering composite from the framework (adhesive
failure; Fig 5A), (ii) partial debonding at the interface result-
ing in partial loss of veneering composite from the framework
leaving some composite intact with fibers (adhesive failure;
Fig 5B), (iii) combination failure, that is, complete or partial
debonding at the fiber/veneer interface (adhesive) along with
veneer fracture from the veneer surface (cohesive; Fig 5C). The
failure demonstrated itself in the form of a crack line running
in the veneer composite in the mesiodistal direction along the
direction of fibers and ending up at the interface of framework
and composite (Fig 5C). There was no case of cohesive failure
without adhesive failure, framework failure, tooth fracture, or
decementation of retainer in any of the groups. The majority of
cracks were seen in the pontic region of FPDs, where the exper-
imental force was applied. In all groups, the majority of spec-
imens showed partial debonding. The second most-common

Journal of Prosthodontics 24 (2015) 5763 

C 2014 by the American College of Prosthodontists 59
Flexure and Fracture Strength of 3-Unit FRC FPDs Kumar et al

Figure 3 (A) Working model; (B) wax pattern for FRC framework; and (C) silicone putty matrices; and (D) silicone putty matrices after removal of wax
pattern.

Figure 4 (A) Placement of unidirectional fiber bundle for pontic framework; (B) polymerized unidirectional fiber bundle for pontic framework; (C) final
framework: woven FRC adapted over polymerized unidirectional fiber bundle for pontic framework; and (D) final FRC FPD.

failure was combination failure, whereas complete debonding
was observed in the fewest specimens (Fig 6).
Discussion
This study was conducted to investigate the effect of three
design preparations on the fracture and flexure strength of
FRC FPDs. The FRC FPDs were luted with adhesive resin
cement and subjected to a three-point bending test via a univer-
sal testing machine. Although both conventional and adhesive
cements have been recommended for their cementation, previ-
ous studies have shown that adhesive cementation is a better
option,14-1614-16 and therefore dual-cure resin cement was used
for luting all FRC FPDs.

60 Journal of Prosthodontics 24 (2015) 5763 

C 2014 by the American College of Prosthodontists
Kumar et al Flexure and Fracture Strength of 3-Unit FRC FPDs

Table 1 One-way ANOVA for fracture strength within the groups

Fracture strength (N)

Groups Minimum Maximum Mean SD p Value

Group A (full coverage) 734.06 919.14 820.00 56.51 <0.0001

Group B (box preparation 459.36 637.79 536.94 65.62
Group C (tub preparation) 400.00 598.80 501.24 66.71

Table 2 One-way ANOVA for flexure strength within the groups

Flexure strength (MPa)

Groups Minimum Maximum Mean SD p Value

Group A (full coverage) 61.17 76.60 68.33 4.71 <0.0001

Group B (box preparation 38.28 53.15 44.74 5.46
Group C (tub preparation) 33.33 49.90 41.77 5.56

Table 3 Post hoc analysis using Bonferroni test for comparison of groups for fracture and flexure strength

Parameter Group A versus group B Group A versus group C Group B versus group C

Fracture strength < 0.0001 a

< 0.0001 a
0.650b
Flexure strength < 0.0001a < 0.0001a 0.650b

a
Highly significant.
b
Not significant.

Figure 5 Micrographs of specimens showing mode of failures: (A) spec-
imen showing complete debonding (adhesive failure) at 19x magnifi-
cation under low vacuum (*intact fiber framework after veneer loss);
(B) specimen showing half of veneer debonded (i.e., partial debonding
from fiber framework, adhesive failure) at 24 magnification under low
vacuum (**particulate composite, ***intact fiber framework); (C) com-
bination of adhesive and cohesive failure at 24 magnification under
low vacuum (#veneering composite revealing a crack perpendicular to
fiber/veneer interface, ##fiber/veneer interface showing a crack running
parallel to interface in mesiodistal direction).

The result showed that the mean fracture load of all the
groups were in the range of the masticatory load applied during
chewing in the molar region that ranges from 500 to 900 N.17
Fracture and flexure strengths were significantly higher for full
coverage as compared to box- and tub-shaped preparation, and
our results were in agreement with the study conducted by Dyer
et al.4 This can be explained on the basis of greater surface area
coverage by fibers in full coverage design followed by box
preparation and then tub preparation. The greater the surface
area coverage of tooth by the restoration, the greater will be its
resistance to fracture due to better stress distribution. Since the
difference in surface area coverage of box and tub preparation
is minimal, the difference in value for the strength obtained was
not statistically significant. It demonstrates that the specimens
with conventional design preparation were stronger than the
two other designs in this study.
Fracture strength values for full coverage were compara-
ble to these found by Behr et al14 and in disagreement with
various other studies.10,17,18 The values for box and tub prepa-
ration were much lower than previous studies.4,19 This may be

Journal of Prosthodontics 24 (2015) 5763 

C 2014 by the American College of Prosthodontists 61
Flexure and Fracture Strength of 3-Unit FRC FPDs
Figure 6 Mode of failures in different groups.
due to differences in study design, materials used (especially ve-
neering composite) abutment preparation, and test set-up used
for the study. The box- and tub-shaped preparation may be used
in the anterior region, as studies by Bakke et al20 and Hidaka
et al21 showed bite force in the anterior region is much lower
than in the posterior region of the oral cavity. Johnsen et al22
showed much less force is required to break a peanut in the
anterior region of the oral cavity than in the posterior region.
The SEM evaluation showed either adhesive failure or a com-
bination of adhesive and cohesive failures. The fiber framework
was intact without any crack or rupture in all the specimens.
Hence, the strength of the restorations demonstrated in this
study was limited by the strength of the veneering composite as
well as the strength of adhesive bond between the veneer and
the framework.
The SEM study exhibited a two-phase pattern of failure in
each specimen that consisted of either adhesive failure or a
combination of adhesive and cohesive failure. Adhesive failure
means debonding between the fibers and the composite, and
cohesive failure means failure within the veneer composite it-
self. There was no single specimen with cracking, fracture, or
bursting of the fibers. The cracking and debonding of the com-
posite was at the pontic area loaded at the central fossa in all
the specimens, as this area bears maximum compressive stress
occlusally (beneath loading point) and tensile stresses gingi-
vally leading to veneer failure.23 The crack line originating in
the composite was seen running along the fiber path, indicating
the fiber as the strongest phase of the restoration.
The results of this study showed that debonding of the fibers
and composite is the most common mode of failure for FRC
FPDs. Similar findings were reported in previous studies.23-25
The debonding may be due to a weaker bond between the fiber
and the composite that could be due to inefficiency of the cou-
pling agent recommended for silanization.24 Another possible
62 Journal of Prosthodontics 24 (2015) 5763 
Kumar et al
reason for the bond failure may be the mismatch of the elastic
modulus between the fiber framework and the veneering com-
posite, fibers being less rigid than veneering composite. Bend-
ing of the fibers prior to fracture leads to concentration of tensile
stresses at the fiber/veneer interface, resulting in debonding of
the veneering composite.26
Conclusion
From the present study the following conclusions were drawn:
1. All three design preparations had mean fracture (500 to
900 N) and flexural strengths within the range of mas-
ticatory load, but full coverage design preparation had
significantly higher mean fracture and flexural strength
as compared to box- and tub-shaped preparations.
2. Box- and tub-shaped preparations had mean fracture and
flexural strengths toward the lower range of masticatory
load in first molar region; hence, they are not suitable for
an FRC FPD in this region.
3. Further studies are required to discover the long-term
effects of oral conditions and masticatory stresses on
FRC FPDs.
References
1. Lassila LVJ, Tezvergil A, Lahdenpera M, et al: Evaluation of
some properties of two fiber- reinforced composite materials.
Acta Odontol Scand 2005;63:196-204
2. Heumen CCM, Kreulen CM, Bronkhorst EM, et al:
Fiber-reinforced dental composites in beam testing. Dent Mater
2008;24:1435-1443
3. Nakamaura T, Waki T, Kinuta S, et al: Strength and elastic
modulus of fibre-reinforced composites used for fabricating
FPDs. Int J Prosthodont 2003;16:549-553
C 2014 by the American College of Prosthodontists
Kumar et al
4. Dyer SR, Lassila LVJ, Alander P, et al: Static strength of molar
region direct technique glass fiber- reinforced composite fixed
partial dentures. J Oral Rehabil 2005;32:351-357
5. Freilich MA, Karmaker AC, Burstone CJ, et al: Development and
clinical applications of a light polymerized fibre-reinforced
composite. J Prosthet Dent 1998;80:311-318
6. Freilich MA, Meiers JC: Fibre-reinforced composite prostheses.
Dent Clin N Am 2004;48:545-562
7. Freilich MA, Meiers JC, Duncan JP, et al: Fibre-Reinforced
Composites in Clinical Dentistry (ed 1). Carol Stream, IL,
Quintessence, 2000, pp. 1-7
8. Goldberg AJ, Burstone CJ, Hadjinikolaou I, et al: Screening of
matrices and fibers for reinforced thermoplastics intended for
dental applications. J Biomed Mater Res 1994;28:167-173
9. Kim MJ, Jung WC, Oh S, et al: Flexural properties of three kinds
of experimental fiber-reinforced composite posts. Dent Mater J
2011;30:38-44
10. Song HY, Yi YJ, Cho LR, et al: Effects of two preparation
designs and Pontic distance on bending and fracture strength of
fiber-reinforced composite inlay fixed partial dentures. J Prosthet
Dent 2003;90:347-353
11. Freilich MA, Meiers JC, Duncan JP, et al: Fibre-Reinforced
Composites in Clinical Dentistry (ed 1). Carol Stream, IL,
Quintessence, 2000, pp. 23-47
12. Miettinen VM, Narva KK, Vallittu PK: Water resorption,
solubility and effect of post curing of glass fiber reinforced
polymers. Biomaterials 1999;20:1187-1194
13. Ash MM: Wheelers Dental Anatomy, Physiology, and
Occlusion (ed 6). Philadelphia, Saunders, 1999, pp. 245-246
14. Behr M, Rosentrit M, Ledwinsky E, et al: Fracture resistance and
marginal adaptation of conventionally cemented fiber-reinforced
composite three-unit FPDs. Int J Prosthodont 2002;15:467-472
15. Behr M, Rosentritt M, Handel G, et al: Fiber reinforced
composite crowns and FPDS: a clinical report. Int J Prosthodont
2003;16:239-243
16. Yokoyama D, Shinya A, Gomi H, et al: Effects of mechanical
properties of adhesive resin cements on stress distribution in
Journal of Prosthodontics 24 (2015) 5763 
C 2014 by the American College of Prosthodontists
Flexure and Fracture Strength of 3-Unit FRC FPDs
fiber-reinforced composite adhesive fixed partial dentures. Dent
Mater J 2012;31:189-196
17. Ozcan M, Breuklander MH, Vallittu PK: The effect of box
preparation on the strength of glass fibre-reinforced composite
inlay retained fixed partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent
2005;93:337-346
18. Masouka D: Photoelastic comparison of the performance of
varying fiber-reinforced framework designs in three-unit fixed
partial dentures. J Stomatol Soc 2009;76:115-123
19. Behr M, Rosentritt M, Leibrock A, et al: In-vitro study of
fracture strength and marginal adaptation of fibre-reinforced
adhesive fixed partial inlay dentures. J Dent 1999;27:163-
168
20. Bakke M, Holm B, Jensen BL, et al: Unilateral, isometric bite
force in 868 year old women and men related to occlusal
factors. Scand J Dent Res 1990;98:149-158
21. Hidaka O, Iwasaki M, Saito M, et al: Influence of clenching
intensity on bite force balance, occlusal contact area, and average
bite pressure. J Dent Res 1999;78:1336-1344
22. Johnsen SE, Svensson KG, Trulsson M: Forces applied by
anterior and posterior teeth and roles of periodontal afferents
during hold-and-split tasks in human subjects. Exp Brain Res
2007;178:126-134
23. Keulemans F, Lassila LVJ, Garaushi S, et al: Influence of
framework design on the load bearing capacity of
laboratory-made inlay-retained fibre-reinforced composite fixed
dental prosthesis. J Biomech 2009;42:844-849
24. Behr M, Rosentritt M, Latzel D, et al: Comparison of three types
of fiber- reinforced composite molar crowns on their fracture
resistance and marginal adaptation. J Dent 2000;29:187-
196.
25. Chong KH, Chai J, Law D: Strength and mode of failure of
unidirectional and bi-directional glass fiber reinforced composite
materials. Int J Prosthodont 2003;16:161-166
26. Al-Darwish M, Hurley RK, Drummond JL: Flexure strength
evaluation of a laboratory-processed fiber reinforced composite
resin. J Prosthet Dent 2007;97:266-270
63