## 4 Discussion
in 2009, and [PERSON] et al. in 2012 showed that polyethylene fibers are more flexible than glass fibers and stainless steel wire, which is in agreement with the findings in the present study [25; 29; 30]. The higher flexibility of polyethylene as compared to the glass fiber and composite could be credited to its patented lock stitch pattern that avoids transfer of stress back into the reinforcement resin and distributes them into the weave [31]. Whereas, less flexibility of glass fiber reinforced composite may be because of resin pre-impregnation of the fibers [32]. While comparing flexural modulus, the highest was reported by Ribbond(r), with composite with ligature wire having the least value. The results of a study conducted by [PERSON] et al. in 2013 are in accordance with the results of the current study, which showed that the fiber reinforced ribbon was established to have the maximum flexural strength and flexural modulus, followed by fiber glass and polyethylene fiber [33]. [PERSON] et al. in 2015 found that the wire-composite group demonstrated significantly lower bond strength compared to fiber glass group, which is similar to the results obtained in the present study [34]. There is some controversy that exists among the researchers on the employment of hand-impregnated versus pre-impregnated fibers in the restorative procedure. In the present study, hand-impregnated polyethylene fiber demonstrated higher flexural strength and flexural modulus as compared to hand-impregnated. The results are in agreement with the results reported by [PERSON] et al. and [PERSON] et al., as they found in their studies that hand-impregnated fibers exhibited higher flexural strength values [21; 25]. Contrasting results were reported by [PERSON] and [PERSON] in 1998, as they concluded that pre-impregnated fibers exhibit superior flexural strength because of their higher fiber units, attained during manufacturing procedure [35]. Intergroup comparison of mean flexural strength revealed that most of the groups having a statistically significant difference in flexural strength, except between a few groups such as composite block and composite with ligature wire, composite block and InFibra(r), composite with ligature wire and InFibra(r), composite with ligature wire, and F-splint-Aid(r). The empirical results reported herein should be considered in the light of some limitations. In the present experiment, the flexural strength and flexural modulus were examined under in vitro conditions, the applied load did not imitate the dynamic loading situation in the oral cavity. For long duration in the oral cavity, strain allocation may be exaggerated by viscoelastic and biological bone reactions. Consequently, the results of this study should be measured as an estimation of the early condition after a splint has been positioned [36]. Also, while performing a three-point bend test, stress was applied in one direction, therefore it fails to mimics the actual occlusal condition in many clinically possible loading conditions [30]. Further studies are required with protocol simulating experimental conditions more closely to the oral environment. [PERSON] et al. claim that in the dental field, both glass fiber and polyethylene-fiber have incredible potential for reinforcement, but decision making depends on the clinician's understanding of the clinical condition and unique characteristics of each fiber type [37].