The aim of this study was to investigate (i) the effect of direct or indirect polymerisation of adhesive-impregnated ribbon fibre under 4-mm bulk-filled composites on fracture strength; (ii) to compare polyethylene ribbon fibre-reinforcement composites with short fibre-reinforced composite; and (iii) the effectiveness of polyethylene ribbon fibre according to the restorative materials used (low-viscous bulk-fill composite, high-viscous flowable composite or conventional paste composite). Seventy molars were divided into seven groups; (groups 1-2) Ribbond-reinforced Surefil-SDR; (group 3) Ribbond-reinforced G Aenial Flo; (group 4) Ribbond-reinforced G Aenial Posterior; (group 5) short fibre-reinforced composite everX Posterior; (group 6) unfilled cavity; (group 7) intact teeth. Ribbond was adopted to cavity walls by impregnating an adhesive and using a flowable composite. In group 1, adhesive-impregnated Ribbond was polymerised directly using a light-curing-unit, and indirectly in group 2 under 4-mm bulk-filled composite. Direct or indirect polymerisation of adhesive impregnated ribbon fibre under 4-mm bulk-filled composite did not change the fracture strength results. Polyethylene ribbon fibre-reinforced groups (groups 1-4) and short fibre-reinforced composite group (group 5) displayed similar results. Polyethylene ribbon fibre can be used safely under 4-mm bulk-filled composites. Ribbond-reinforced low-viscous bulk-fill, high-viscous flowable, and conventional paste composite exhibited similar fracture strength results.
Keywords: polyethylene ribbon fibre reinforced composite; short fibre reinforced composite.
© 2016 Australian Society of Endodontology Inc.