d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 3 1 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 1022–1029

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

journal homepage: www.intl.elsevierhealth.com/journals/dema

Ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene fiber

reinforced dental composites:Effect of fiber surface
treatment on mechanical properties
of the composites

Niloofar Bahramian a , Mohammad Atai b,∗ ,

Mohammad Reza Naimi-Jamal c
a Department of Biomaterials, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
b Iran Polymer and Petrochemical Institute (IPPI), P. O. Box 14965/115, Tehran, Iran
c Department of Chemistry, Iran University of Science and Technology, 16846 Tehran, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Objectives. Poor interfacial adhesion between the fibers and resin matrix in the ultra high
Received 19 December 2014 molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) fiber reinforced composites (FRCs) is the main
Received in revised form drawback of the composites. This study aims to evaluate the effect of corona and silane
28 April 2015 surface treatment of the fibers on the mechanical properties of the UHMWPE FRCs.
Accepted 25 May 2015 Methods. UHMWPE fibers were exposed to corona discharges for different periods of time
(0 s, 5 s, 7 s). The surface characteristics of the UHMWPE fibers were investigated by atten-
uated total reflectance Fourier transformed infrared spectroscopy (ATR-FTIR), atomic force
Keywords: microscopy (AFM), scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and nanoindentation technique.
Fiber reinforced composites (FRCs) The flexural strength and flexural modulus of the FRCs made of the treated fibers were
UHMWPE fibers determined on 2 mm × 2 mm × 25 mm specimens. The fracture toughness (the critical stress
Corona treatment intensity factor, KIC ) of the composites was also evaluated using a three-point single edge
Mechanical properties notch beam (SENB) bending technique. Statistical analysis of the data was performed with
ANOVA and the Tukey’s post-hoc test. The fiber-resin interface and the fracture surface were
investigated using SEM.
Results. The change in the surface mechanical properties and chemistry of the corona treated
UHMWPE fibers were monitored. The fibers exposed to corona for 5 s showed higher sur-
face nanohardness. In the FRCs, the specimens reinforced with 5 s corona treated silanized
fibers showed higher mechanical properties (flexural modulus, flexural strength, and frac-
ture toughness), SEM images revealed a better adhesion between the resin and fibers after
5 s fiber corona treatment and silanization.
Significance. Corona and silane treatment of UHMWPE fibers provide dental FRCs with
improved mechanical properties.
© 2015 Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

∗
Corresponding author. Tel.: +98 2148662446; fax: +98 2144787023.
E-mail address: m.atai@ippi.ac.ir (M. Atai).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2015.05.011
0109-5641/© 2015 Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 3 1 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 1022–1029 1023

1. Introduction 2. Materials and methods

Development of fiber-reinforced composites (FRCs) have 2.1. Materials

offered dental researchers the possibility of making resin-
bonded, mechanically and esthetically good, and metal- Materials used in this study are presented in Table 1.
free restorations for teeth replacement [1,2]. Variety of
dental applications, such as bridges, splints, posts, space- 2.2. Methods
maintainers, orthodontic retainers, denture bases, clasps and
connectors, and implant prostheses made of FRCs have suc- 2.2.1. Surface corona treatments of UHMWPE fibers
cessfully been used in dental practice providing acceptable UHMWPE fibers were treated for 5 s and 7 s under atmospheric
mechanical properties [3,4]. In general, in a FRC, fibers are the pressure air corona discharge using SpotTEC corona power
main load-carrying members, while the surrounding matrix Generator (Tantec, Lunderskov, Denmark, 6.5 kV/25 kHz and
acts as a load transfer medium and protects the fibers from 550 W). The distance between electrode and UHMWPE fiber
environmental harms [5]. The mechanical properties of FRCs surface was 5 cm.
are dependent upon the mechanical properties of each com-
ponent, quality of impregnation of fiber with resin, adhesion 2.2.2. AFM and nanoindentation analysis
between the fiber and matrix, quantity of fibers in the matrix AFM imaging analysis was performed (SPM Dualscope/
resin, the fiber volume fraction, fiber architecture, and the fiber Rasterscope C26, DME, Copenhagen/Herlev, Denmark) to study
type [6,7]. UHMWPE fibers in comparison with other plastic the surface topography and roughness of the fibers before
materials are found to have high impact resistance, toughness, and after corona treatment. Hardness (Hi ) of the fibers was
and tensile strength. The fibers are also light weight, corro- determined using nanoindentaion technique (CSM, Peseux,
sion and wear resistant [8,9]. Adhesion of UHMWPE fibers to Switzerland, indentor type: Berkovich, indentor material: dia-
the matrix resin is, however, difficult because the UHMWPE is mond, max depth: 500 nm, loading and unloading rates:
non-polar in nature with low surface energy [10]. To provide 1000 nm min−1 ). The elastic modulus of the specimen in
a good adhesion between the UHMWPE fibers and the poly- depth-sensing indentation techniques, used in nanoindenta-
mer matrix, the surface of the fibers has been modified using tion test, is determined from the slope of the unloading of
different methods such as chemical modification [11], chem- the load-displacement response, Ei . Vickers hardness was also
ical grafting [12], corona discharging [13,14], oxygen plasma calculated from the Hi .
[15–17], high energy laser [18], UV [19], and gamma irradia-
tion [20]. Improving the adhesion performance of UHMWPE 2.2.3. Fourier-transform infrared spectrometer (FT-IR)
may results in improved dental FRCs. Corona discharge, is a A FTIR spectrometer (EQUINOX55, Specac golden gate, ZnSe
process by which ionized gas species are formed around an prism, Bruker, Germany) was used in order to identify func-
active high potential electrode due to the electrical current tional groups formed on the fibers after corona and silane
[21]. In corona treatments of polymers the ionized species treatments. The spectra were collected in the wavenumber
transfer their charge to the polymer surface resulting in range of 4000–400 cm−1 , using attenuated total reflectance
increase in surface energy by introducing polar groups on technique (ATR-FTIR). In this technique the infrared beam is
the surface. The corona discharge may also change the sur- directed into a crystal of relatively high refractive index (ZnSe)
face roughness [22]. The process can impart hydrophilicity which is in contact with the fibers. Multiple reflections of
to polymer surfaces which may improve the surface affin- the beam in the crystal collects the spectrum of the intimate
ity and sticking strength with some hydrophilic polymers fibers.
[13]. It can also improve the bonding characteristics of mate-
rials by raising the surface energy, wettability, oxygen to 2.2.4. Silanization of UHMWPE fibers
carbon ratio, number of functional polar groups on the sur- The chemical surface modification of UHMWPE fibers was car-
face, and specific surface area leading to enhanced adhesive ried out using a 2 (wt/vol)% !-MPS in ethanol/distilled-water
capabilities, increase in the delamination force [23,24] and (70/30 wt/wt, pH adjusted at 3.8 using acetic acid). Having the
improvement in the fracture toughness and flexural proper- silane pre-hydrolyzed for 1 h, the fibers were immersed in the
ties [25]. Silane treatment, on the other side, is a well-known solution and left for 1 week at room temperature to dry.
method for improvement of surface wettability and interfa-
cial adhesion between matrix resin and OH-covered substrates 2.2.5. Composite preparation and mechanical
[26–28]. measurements
Therefore, the combination of these two surface modifica- The composites were classified in 5 groups (Table 2). Group 1,
tion methods may result in FRCs with improved properties. group 2 and group 3 were prepared to evaluate the effect of
This study, consequently, designed to test the hypothesis that corona exposure time. All these three groups were made of 10
the double surface treatment of UHMWPE fibers improves the bundles for flexural test and 20 bundles for fracture toughness
mechanical properties of an experimental dental FRC contain- test. As the volume of the fracture toughness test mold was
ing the fibers as reinforcing phase and Bis-GMA/TEGDMA as two times of the flexural test, twice fibers were inserted in the
matrix. fracture toughness molds to keep the fiber content constant
1024 d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 3 1 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 1022–1029

Table 1 – Materials used in the study.

Country City Company Special properties Role Name
Germany Krefeld Evonik – Resin monomer 2,2-Bis-[4-
(methacryloxypropoxy)-
phenyl]-propane
(Bis-GMA)
Germany Krefeld Evonik – Diluent Triethyleneglycol
monomer dimethacrylate (TEGDMA)
Germany Munich Sigma–Aldrich – Activator N-N′ -dimethyl aminoethyl
methacrylate (DMAEMA)
Germany Munich Sigma–Aldrich – Initiator Camphorquinone (CQ)
China Shanghai Surrey Hi-Tech Roving Reinforcing fibers Ultra-high-molecular-
continuous weight polyethylene
(SP1200/320) (UHMWPE)
Diameter
≈ 20 "m*
USA Pittsburgh Acros organics 98% Purity Silane coupling 3-(Trimethoxysilyl)propyl
agent methacrylate (!-MPS)
*
Diameter is reported based on SEM observation.

in both tests. The fiber corona treatment time was 0 s, 5 s and strength (FS) was calculated in (MPa) using the following
7 s for group 1, group 2 and group 3, respectively. The fibers formula:
in these three groups were silanized after corona treatment.
Group 4 and group 5 were made of 8 fiber bundles for flexural FS = 3pL/2bd2
test and 16 fiber bundles for fracture toughness test, corona
where p is the maximum load (N); L is the span length (mm); b
treatment time was 5 s for both of them. The fibers in group
is the width of the specimen (mm) and h, the height (mm). The
4 were silanized but the fibers in group 5 received no silane
flexural modulus was calculated from the slope of the initial
treatment to evaluate the effect of silane treatment.
linear region of stress–strain curve.

2.2.5.1. Flexural strength and flexural modulus. 0.5 wt% CQ 2.2.5.2. Fracture toughness. To determine the fracture tough-
and 0.5 wt% DMAEMA, as photo-initiator system, were mixed ness (KIC ), rectangular bar single-edge notch beam (SENB)
with the matrix resin (Bis-GMA/TEGDMA, 70/30 wt/wt). The specimens (n = 5) were fabricated in a 5 mm × 2 mm × 25 mm
fibers were then impregnated with resin and were cut with a stainless steel mold. The mold was filled with impregnated
sharp surgical blade and placed manually into the mold in uni- fibers according to Table 2 and cured using the same procedure
directional (UD) position. 5 bar shaped specimens were made as the flexural specimens. A 2.5 mm notch was then cut at the
of each composite group according to Table 2, using a metal center of each specimen using a 0.6 mm thick diamond wheel
mold with the dimensions of 25 mm × 2 mm × 2 mm. The mold cutting machine (Mecatome T 201 A, Oxford, UK). A razor blade
was placed on a glass slide and manually filled with the pre- was then pressed on the notches to provide a sharp crack. The
impregnated fibers. A second glass slide was placed on and bending fracture test was performed at a cross-head speed of
pressed against it. The composite was cured with a LED den- 1 mm min−1 [29,30] using the universal testing machine and
tal light source (L.E. Demetron 1, SDS/Kerr, Orange, CA, USA) the fracture toughness (critical stress intensity factor, KIC ) was
with power density of 600 mW cm−2 for 40 s in three consecu- calculated according to the following equation [31]:
tive points, producing a partial overlapping. After curing, the
specimens were polished with abrasive paper 600 and 1000 KIC = [3PL/2BW 3/2 ]Y
grits and stored in distilled water at 37 ◦ C (±2 ◦ C) for 24 h.
Afterwards, they were submitted to a three point bending test 1/2 3/2 5/2
Y = (1.93(a/W) ) − (3.07(a/W) + 14.53(a/W)
with a universal testing machine (STM 20, Santam, Tehran,
7/2 9/2
Iran) with a crosshead speed of 1 mm min−1 . The flexural − 25.11(a/W) + 25.8(a/W) )

Table 2 – Characteristics of the studied groups.

Groups Aim of study Fibers corona Silanization of Number of Number of
treatment time fibers with fiber bundles fiber bundles
(s) !-MPS for (flexural for (fracture
test) toughness test)
1 Effect of corona exposure time 0 Yes 10 20
2 Effect of corona exposure time 5 Yes 10 20
3 Effect of corona exposure time 7 Yes 10 20
4 Effect of silane treatment 5 Yes 8 16
5 Effect of silane treatment 5 No 8 16
 d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 3 1 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 1022–1029 1025

Fig.1 – SEM micrographs of UHMWPE fibers exposed to corona at (a) 0 s, (b) 5 s, and (c) 7 s.The images show the fiber
surface details at 30,000× magnification.

Fig.2 – AFM images show UHMWPE fibers (a) with no corona treatment, (b) treated for 5 s corona discharge, and (c) treated
for 7 s corona discharge.

where P is load at fracture (N), L, W, B, and a are length, width, silane treatments. The flexural strength, flexural modulus and
thickness, and notch length (in mm), respectively. The frac- fracture toughness of the FRCs (groups 1–3, Table 2), are shown
tured specimens were then observed under scanning electron in Fig. 4(a and b). The composite containing 5 s corona treated
microscope. fibers have statistically significant higher flexural strength
(225.7 ± 22.2 MPa), flexural modulus (45.2 ± 5.1 GPa) and frac-
2.2.6. SEM analysis ture toughness (6.8 ± 1.2 MPa m1/2 ) among the other groups
The fiber surface after treatment and fracture surfaces of
the specimens in the fracture test were observed by (FESEM,
Mira 3-XMU, Brno-Kohoutovice, Czech Republic) and (TES-
a
CAN, VEGAII, XMU, Brno-Kohoutovice, Czech Republic). The
samples were gold coated by a sputter coater before SEM obser-
b
vations.
c
Transmittance (arb. units)

2.2.7. Statistical analysis

d
The mechanical properties results were statistically analyzed
(at least 5 repeat for each test) using one-way ANOVA and the e
Tukey’s post-hoc test at the significance level of 0.05.
ν(OH) ν(C=O)

3. Results
ν(C-O-C), ν(Si-O-Si), ν(Si-O-R)

SEM and AFM microscopic imaging of the UHMWPE fibers

show different surface topographies after corona treatment
4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500
(illustrated in Figs. 1 and 2). The hardness, modulus and rough-
Wavenumber (cm-1)
ness of corona treated and untreated fibers are tabulated in
Table 3. An increasing and then decreasing trend is observed Fig.3 – ATR-FTIR spectra of UHMWPE fibers (a) untreated
upon corona discharge duration. ATR-FTIR (Fig. 3) spectrums fibers, (b) 5 s corona treated, (c) 7 s corona treated, (d) 5 s
of the fibers before and after treatments show appearance corona treated and silanized, (e) 7 s corona treated and
of functional groups on the fiber surface after corona and silanized.
1026 d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 3 1 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 1022–1029

Table 3 – Surface properties of UHMWPE fibers before and after corona treatment.
Corona time (s) Hi (MPa) HV Ei (GPa) Sq (nm)
*a c e
0 110.4 (38.8) 10.2(3.6) 7.0 (0.9) 90.5
5 314.1 (102.7)b** 29.1 (9.5)d 21.4 (8.0)f 171
7 140.0 (20.6)a 13.0 (1.9)cd 9.1 (6.9)ef 43.6
Hi : Indentation Hardness.
HV: Vickers Hardness.
Ei : Indentation Modulus.
Sq: root-mean-square (Rms) (average surface roughness).
∗
Numbers in the parenthesis represent the standard deviations.
∗∗
Means with the same letter are not significantly different at p ≤ 0.05.

Table 4 – Mechanical properties of the composites made of unsilanized and silanized fibers corona treated for 5 s.
Silane concentration (wt%) Flexural strength (MPa) Flexural modulus (GPa) Fracture toughness, KIC (MPa m1/2 )
0 (Group 5) 45.9 (9.4)*a 12.8 (3.0)c 1.7 (0.7)e
2 (Group 4) 197.2 (26.4)b** 39.3 (8.0)d 5.9 (1.8)f
∗
Numbers in the parenthesis represent the standard deviations.
∗∗
The letters show significant difference at p ≤ 0.05.

300 fracture (Figs. 5 and 6) improvements in the adhesion between

a 50 fibers and matrix resin is observed after corona and silane
250 treatments.
40
Flexural strength (MPa)

Flexural modulus (GPa)

200
30
4. Discussion
150
20
The characteristics of the interface between the UHMWPE
fibers and the polymer matrix is an important factor determin-
100 10
ing the mechanical properties of UHMWPE fiber-reinforced
composites [24]. With the aim of improving the mechani-
50 0
0 2 4 6 8 cal properties of UHMWPE-based dental FRCs double surface
treatment of the fibers were performed using corona discharge
Corona treatment time (sec)
and silanization. The results verified the hypothesis that the
FS FM treatments improved mechanical properties of the compos-
ites through improving the interfacial adhesion between the
b
Fracture toughness, KIC, (MPa.m1/2)

8 fibers and the matrix resin.

The SEM images (Fig. 1a) shows the smooth surface of
untreated UHMWPE fibers, only a few shallow longitudinal
6
crevices is seen which are formed during the spinning of
the fibers. After corona treatment, the crevices are almost
4
removed but micro-pits are formed on the surface of 5 s corona
treated fibers (Fig. 1b). Fig. 1c, however, shows deepening of the
2 crevices after 7 s corona. Up to 5 s the fibers receive enough
energy for melting the superficial polymer and disappearing
0 the longitudinal grooves along with the formation of some
0 2 4 6 8 micro-pits on the surface. At longer exposure times (here 7 s),
Corona treatment time (sec)
high corona energy may degrade the polymer or melt the bulk
of the polymer leading to the deformation and/or rupture of
Fig.4 – Mechanical properties of the FRCs corona exposure the fibers which are seen in Fig. 1c. This morphological change
time, (a) flexural strength and flexural modulus, (b) fracture may be attributed to excavating the fibers surface [32] and
toughness. partly broken UHMWPE polymer chains under the high energy
corona [33]. The presence of micro-pits on the fiber surface can
improve the interfacial adhesion of fiber–matrix through the
(p < 0.05). The FRC with silanized fibers, in Table 4, shows mechanical interlocking between the micro-pits and the resin
higher flexural strength (197.2 ± 26.4 MPa), flexural modu- [17]. The changes in fiber surface roughness are also presented
lus (39.3 ± 8.0 GPa) and fracture toughness (5.9 ± 1.8 MPa m1/2 ) in Table 3. The AFM images (Fig. 2) clearly show the increasing
compared to FRC made of unsilanized fibers (p < 0.05). (Fig. 2b) and decreasing (Fig. 2c) of the surface roughness in 5 s
According to the SEM images of composite specimens after and 7 s corona exposure times, respectively.
 d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 3 1 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 1022–1029 1027

Fig.5 – Fracture surface of composite made of (a) untreated fibers, (b) 5 s corona treated fibers, (c) 7 s corona treated fibers.

UHMWPE fibers are not adequately bonded to the poly- The surface elastic modulus and hardness (Table 3) shows
mer matrix because of their chemical inertness, low surface a significant increasing trend up to 5 s (p < 0.05) which then
energy, and the absence of any polar groups on the sur- plateaued out or decreased with further corona exposure. The
face of fibers. Corona treatment may introduce polar groups increase in the hardness and modulus of the fibers may be
into the polymer surfaces and increase the surface energy, attributed to the surface crosslinking of the polymer chains.
substrate wettability, hydrophilicity and adhesion charac- Peroxy radicals formed on the surface of the fibers further
teristics [10,34]. The main chemical mechanism of corona to corona exposure may cause either crosslinking of the
treatment is oxidation which introduce oxygen contain- polymer chains or chain scission. Under normal treatment
ing groups on the fiber surface [34,35]. ATR-FTIR (Fig. 3) conditions the chain crosslinking reaction is dominant and
spectrums of the treated and untreated fibers illustrates the under severe conditions which polymer receive higher corona
appearance of stretching vibration of hydroxyl groups (!(OH) energy the chain scission is prevalent [35]. UHMWPE is a
at 3200–3600 cm−1 ), stretching vibration of carbonyl groups semi-crystalline polymer [37,38]. Crosslinking create covalent
(!(C O) at ∼1710 cm−1 ), and stretching vibration of C O C bonds between neighboring chains primarily in the amor-
groups (at ∼1100 cm−1 ). These groups change the surface phous region [39] resulting in higher surface modulus and
chemistry and surface energy of the fibers [36] which, con- hardness. At higher exposure times, however, chain scission
sequently, affect the adhesion characteristics of the fibers. along with the melting of the surface polymer layer may
Considering the absorption peak of in-plane bending (scissor- decrease molecular weight and crystallinity of the UHMWPE
ing) vibration of CH2 groups (ıs at 1464 cm−1 ), which are not which consequently decrease the mechanical properties of
changed during corona treatment, as internal reference, the the polymer (Table 3). Therefore, it can be concluded that
ratio of #(C O)area /ıs (CH2 ) was calculated. The ratio is 0.07 for although micro-pits formed on fiber surfaces may strengthen
5 s exposure and 0.09 for 7 s treatment, which indicates that fiber–matrix bond, higher exposure may cause great loss of
more oxygen-containing groups are formed on the surface fiber strength. Therefore, a trade-off between the fiber–matrix
with increasing corona exposure time. bond and fiber strength loss should be considered [40].

Fig.6 – Fracture surface of composite made of (a) fibers with no silane treatment (group 5), (b) fibers treated with 2% silane
(group 4).
1028 d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 3 1 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 1022–1029

Placing fibers in the resin toughens the composite through SEM micrographs (Fig. 6) show the debonding of the fibers
different mechanisms among them are blunting the crack from the matrix resin in FRC made of fiber with no silane
front path or changing the crack direction [41]. The effect of treatment while a good adhesion is observed between the
incorporation of the fibrous reinforcements, however, strongly silane treated fibers and matrix which confirm improved inter-
dependent upon interfacial adhesion between the resin and facial adhesion to the matrix resin and consequently higher
the fiber [42]. In this study composite containing 5 s corona mechanical properties in the case of composites contain-
treated fiber exhibited significantly higher flexural strength, ing corona and silane treated fibers. The strong mechanical
flexural modulus, and fracture toughness than other groups interlocking along with the methacrylate functional groups of
(p < 0.05) (Fig. 4). It has been reported that corona treatment of silane coupling agent prevent the crack propagation trough
carbon fibers significantly increased the flexural strength of the fiber–matrix interface resulting in higher performance and
composites made of the fibers [14]. The 5 s corona treatment mechanical properties of the final FRC [28,44].
of the UHMWPE fibers provides micro-pits on the surface of
fibers and change the surface chemistry through introduc-
ing polar oxygen-containing groups. The former provides 5. Conclusions
micromechanical interlocking between matrix resin and fibers
and the latter enhances the wetting of the fibers by resin Treatment of UHMWPE fibers with corona in controlled time
matrix. Both modifications increase the interfacial adhesion changes the fiber surface chemistry, topography, roughness,
and enhance the ability of the FRC to absorb energy and hardness, and elastic modulus. The surface hardness, modu-
exhibit higher mechanical properties. SEM fractographs of lus, and roughness of the fibers were enhanced when exposed
the FRCs (Fig. 5) also illustrate a good interfacial adhesion to 5 s corona discharge and then decreased with further
between resin matrix and fibers in the composites rein- increase in the exposure time. The corona treated fibers results
forced with 5 s corona treated fibers while a poor adhesion in the FRCs with improved flexural properties and higher
is observed in the FRC containing untreated fibers. The FRC fracture toughness. Introducing oxygen-containing functional
reinforced with 7 s corona treated fibers not only shows lack groups on the surface of the fibers due to corona discharge
of good interfacial adhesion but also reveals the deformation makes the grafting of !-MPS coupling agent on the surface
of fibers due to the exposure to high energy corona at longer possible. The silanization of corona treated fibers significantly
times. enhances the mechanical properties of the FRCs due to for-
Silane treatment of the fibers resulted in FRCs with mation of good interfacial bonding between the fibers and
higher mechanical properties (p<0.05) (Table 4). Silane cou- matrix resin. It is concluded that mutual corona and silane
pling agents are usually applied on the surface of reinforcing surface treatments of UHMWPE fibers is a promising method
particulates or fibers to increase their wetting properties for fabrication of the UHMWPE reinforced dental FRCs.
and provide good adhesion between the resin matrix and
reinforcing phase. The chemical structure and curing mech-
referenc es
anism of the matrix resin are determining factors in the
selection of organosilanes [43]. !-MPS with methacrylate
organic functionality is the silane of choice for (meth)acrylate
[1] Ramakrishna S, Mayer J, Wintermantel E, Leong W.
matrix resins. The silane, however, needs OH functional
Biomedical applications of polymer-composite materials: a
groups on the surface of reinforcing phase to react through review. Compos Sci Technol 2001;61:1189–224.
its silanol functional groups formed after pre-hydrolysis. The [2] van Heumen CC, Kreulen CM, Bronkhorst EM, Lesaffre E,
OH groups are introduced on the fiber surface by corona Creugers NH. Fiber-reinforced dental composites in beam
treatment. The ATR-FTIR spectra of the corona treated and testing. Dent Mater 2008;24:1435–43.
silanized UHMWPE fibers (Fig. 3, spectrums d and e) show [3] Freilich MA, Karmaker AC, Burstone CJ, Goldberg AJ.
Development and clinical applications of a
strong Si O Si and Si O R stretching absorption bands at
light-polymerized fiber-reinforced composite. Prosthet Dent
around 1130–1000 cm−1 (the Si-alkoxy bands are usually apt
1998;80:311–8.
to be masked by strong Si O Si absorption). The broad peak [4] Goldberg AJ, Burstone CJ. The use of continuous fiber
around 3600–3200 cm−1 are attributed to the silanol groups of reinforcement in dentistry. Dent Mater 1992;8:197–202.
the !-MPS as well as OH functional groups introduced on [5] Mallick PK. Fiber-reinforced composites: materials,
the surface of fibers due to corona treatment. The stretch- manufacturing, and design. CRC press; 2010.
ing vibration of carbonyl groups (!(C O) at ∼1710 cm−1 ) is [6] Shubhra QT, Alam A, Quaiyyum M. Mechanical properties of
polypropylene composites: a review. J Thermoplast Compos
stronger after silanization which is attributed to the car-
Mater 2011;26:362–91.
bonyl group of the methacrylate end of !-MPS. The peak at [7] Miao C, Hamad WY. Cellulose reinforced polymer
∼1735 cm−1 is also assigned to the C C group of the silane composites and nanocomposites: a critical review. Cellulose
coupling agent. The interaction between the methacrylate 2013;20:2221–62.
matrix resin (Bis-GMA/TEGDMA) and the silanized corona [8] Sui G, Zhong WH, Ren X, Wang XQ, Yang XP. Structure,
treated UHMWPE fibers is a combination of micromechan- mechanical properties and friction behavior of
UHMWPE/HDPE/carbon nanofibers. Mater Chem Phys
ical interlocking due to the presence of micro-pits, covalent
2009;115:404–12.
bonds owing to the polymerization of methacrylate resins
[9] Marissen R. Design with ultra strong polyethylene fibers.
with methacrylate functional group of !-MPS, and polar inter- Mater Sci Appl 2011;02:319–30.
actions between oxygen-containing groups on the surface of [10] Oosterom R, Ahmed TJ, Poulis JA, Bersee HE. Adhesion
the fibers and ester/OH groups of the matrix resin. performance of UHMWPE after different surface
 d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 3 1 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 1022–1029 1029

modification techniques. Med Eng Phys 2006;28: [28] Abdelmouleh M, Boufi S, Belgacem M, Dufresne A. Short
323–30. natural-fibre reinforced polyethylene and natural rubber
[11] Debnath S, Ranade R, Wunder SL, Baran GR, Zhang J, Fisher composites: effect of silane coupling agents and fibres
ER. Chemical surface treatment of ultrahigh molecular loading. Compos Sci Technol 2007;67:1627–39.
weight polyethylene for improved adhesion to methacrylate [29] Polymer Composites, Volume 1, Macro- and
resins. J Appl Polym Sci 2005;96:1564–72. Microcomposites. Sabu Thomas, Kuruvilla Joseph, Malhotra
[12] Etcheverry M, Damiani DE, Ferreira ML, Barbosa SE, Capiati SK, Koichi Goda, Sreekala MS, editors. 2012.
NJ. Chemical grafting of metallocene-catalyzed functional [30] Park SJ, Kim MH, Lee JR, Choi S. Effect of fiber-polymer
polypropylene copolymer on glass substrates through interactions on fracture toughness behavior of carbon
surface modification. J Appl Polym Sci 2008;109:2815–22. fiber-reinforced epoxy matrix composites. J Colloid Interface
[13] Xu W, Liu X. Surface modification of polyester fabric by Sci 2000;228:287–91.
corona discharge irradiation. Eur Polym J 2003;39:199–202. [31] Atai M, Pahlavan A, Moin N. Nano-porous thermally sintered
[14] Fathi B, Esfandeh M, Soltani AK, Taghavian H. Effect of nano silica as novel fillers for dental composites. Dent Mater
corona discharge treatment on dynamic mechanical 2012;28:133–45.
properties of unsaturated polyester/carbon fiber pultruded [32] Carradò A, Sokolova O, Donnio B, Palkowski H. Influence of
composites. Polym Plast Technol Eng 2014;53:162–6. corona treatment on adhesion and mechanical properties in
[15] Liu H, Xie D, Qian L, Deng X, Leng YX, Huang N. The metal/polymer/metal systems. J Appl Polym Sci
mechanical properties of the ultrahigh molecular weight 2011;120:3709–15.
polyethylene (UHMWPE) modified by oxygen plasma. Surf [33] Zheng Z, Tang X, Shi M, Zhou G. Surface modification of
Coat Technol 2011;205:2697–701. ultrahigh-molecular-weight polyethylene fibers. Polym Sci
[16] Moon SI, Jang J. The effect of the oxygen-plasma treatment Part B: Polym Phys 2004;42:463–72.
of UHMWPE fiber on the transverse properties of [34] Zheng Z, Tang X, Shi M, Zhou G. A study of the influence of
UHMWPE-fiber/vinylester composites. Compos Sci Technol controlled corona treatment on UHMWPE fibres in
1999;59:487–93. reinforced vinylester composites. Polym Int 2003;52:1833–8.
[17] Yeh J-T, Lai Y-C, Suen M-C, Chen C-C. An improvement on [35] Zhang D, Sun Q, Wadsworth LC. Mechanism of corona
the adhesion-strength of laminated treatment on polyolefin films. Polym Eng Sci 1998;38:
ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene fabrics: 965–70.
surface-etching/modification using highly effective [36] Kondyurin A, Naseri P, Fisher K, McKenzie DR, Bilek MMM.
helium/oxygen/nitrogen plasma treatment. Polym Adv Mechanisms for surface energy changes observed in plasma
Technol 2011;22:1971–81. immersion ion implanted polyethylene: the roles of free
[18] Mittal KL. Polymer surface modification: relevance to radicals and oxygen-containing groups. Polym Degrad Stab
adhesion. CRC Press; 2007. 2009;94:638–46.
[19] Wang J, Liang G, Zhao W, Lü S, Zhang Z. Studies on surface [37] Barron D, Birkinshaw C. Ultra-high molecular weight
modification of UHMWPE fibers via UV initiated grafting. polyethylene – evidence for a three-phase morphology.
Appl Surf Sci 2006;253:668–73. Polymer 2008;49:3111–5.
[20] Cho EH, Lee SG, Kim JK. Surface modification of UHMWPE [38] Barron D, Birkinshaw C. On the morphology of some
with !-ray radiation for improving interfacial bonding irradiated ultra high molecular weight polyethylenes. Polym
strength with bone cement (II). Curr Appl Phys 2005;5:475–9. Degrad Stab 2009;94:1621–31.
[21] Chang J-S, Lawless PA, Yamamoto T. Corona discharge [39] Ries MD, Pruitt L. Effect of cross-linking on the
processes. IEEE Trans Plasma Sci 1991:1152–66. microstructure and mechanical properties of ultra-high
[22] Zhang D, Wadsworth LC. Corona treatment of polyolefin molecular weight polyethylene. Clin Orthop Relat Res
films—a review. Adv Polym Technol 1999;18:171–80. 2005;440:149–56.
[23] Iqbal HMS, Bhowmik S, Benedictus R. Surface modification [40] Wan YZ, Wang YL, Zhou FG, Cheng GX, Han KY.
of high performance polymers by atmospheric pressure Three-dimensionally braided carbon fiber-epoxy
plasma and failure mechanism of adhesive bonded joints. composites, a new type of materials for osteosynthesis
Int J Adhes Adhes 2010;30:418–24. devices. II. Influence of fiber surface treatment. J Appl Polym
[24] Lin SP, Han JL, Yeh JT, Chang FC, Hsieh KH. Composites of Sci 2002;85:1040–6.
UHMWPE fiber reinforced PU/epoxy grafted interpenetrating [41] Li S, Thouless M, Waas A, Schroeder J, Zavattieri P. Use of a
polymer networks. Eur Polym J 2007;43:996–1008. cohesive-zone model to analyze the fracture of a
[25] Hamza TA, Rosenstiel SF, Elhosary MM, Ibraheem RM. The fiber-reinforced polymer? matrix composite. Compos Sci
effect of fiber reinforcement on the fracture toughness and Technol 2005;65:537–49.
flexural strength of provisional restorative resins. J Prosthet [42] Wang TWH, Blum FD. Effect of interfacial mobility on
Dent 2004;91:258–64. flexural strength and fracture toughness of glass/epoxy
[26] Park S-J, Jin J-S. Effect of silane coupling agent on interphase laminates. Mater Sci 1999;34:4873–82.
and performance of glass fibers/unsaturated polyester [43] Plueddemann EP. Adhesion through silane coupling agents.
composites. J Colloid Interface Sci 2001;242:174–9. In: Lee L-H, editor. Fundamentals of adhesion; 1991. p.
[27] Park S-J, Jin J-S. Effect of silane coupling agent on 279–290.
mechanical interfacial properties of glass fiber-reinforced [44] Xie Y, Hill CAS, Xiao Z, Militz H, Mai C. Silane coupling
unsaturated polyester composites. Polym Sci Part B: Poly agents used for natural fiber/polymer composites: a review.
Phys 2003;41:55–62. Compos Part A: Appl Sci Manuf 2010;41:806–19.