Limits...
Comparison of mechanical property and role between enamel and dentin in the human teeth.

Chun K, Choi H, Lee J - J Dent Biomech (2014)

Bottom Line: However, judging from the measured hardness values, enamel was considered harder than dentin.Therefore, enamel has higher wear resistance, making it suitable for grinding and crushing foods, and dentin has higher force resistance, making it suitable for absorbing bite forces.The different mechanical roles of enamel and dentin may arise from their different compositions and internal structures, as revealed through scanning electron micrographs of enamel and dentin.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Advanced BioMedical Enginnering, Korea Institute of Industrial Technology, Cheonan-si, Republic of Korea.

ABSTRACT
The mechanical properties of enamel and dentin were studied using test specimens having the same shape and dimensions because these properties might vary with the experimental conditions and specimen shapes and dimensions. Healthy human teeth were used as specimens for mechanical tests. The stress (MPa), strain (%), and elastic modulus (E, MPa) of the specimens were obtained from compression tests. The maximum stresses of the enamel, dentin, and enamel-dentin specimens were 62.2 ± 23.8, 193.7 ± 30.6, and 126.1 ± 54.6 MPa, respectively. The maximum strains of the enamel, dentin, and enamel-dentin specimens were 4.5 ± 0.8%, 11.9 ± 0.1%, and 8.7 ± 2.7%, respectively. The elastic moduli of the enamel, dentin, and enamel-dentin specimens were 1338.2 ± 307.9, 1653.7 ± 277.9, and 1628.6 ± 482.7 MPa, respectively. The measured hardness value of enamel specimens (HV = 274.8 ± 18.1) was around 4.2 times higher than that of dentin specimens (HV = 65.6 ± 3.9). Judging from the measured values of the stress and strain of enamel specimens, enamel tended to fracture earlier than dentin; therefore, it was considered more brittle than dentin. However, judging from the measured hardness values, enamel was considered harder than dentin. Therefore, enamel has higher wear resistance, making it suitable for grinding and crushing foods, and dentin has higher force resistance, making it suitable for absorbing bite forces. The different mechanical roles of enamel and dentin may arise from their different compositions and internal structures, as revealed through scanning electron micrographs of enamel and dentin.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

A typical stress–strain curve of the enamel, dentin, and ED specimens.ED: enamel–dentin.
© Copyright Policy - creative-commons
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2 - License 3
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3924884&req=5

fig4-1758736014520809: A typical stress–strain curve of the enamel, dentin, and ED specimens.ED: enamel–dentin.

Mentions: Figure 4 shows a typical stress–strain curve of a specific test specimen, which represents a stress–strain relationship in the enamel, dentin, and ED specimens. The linear regression equation indicated that R2 for the enamel, dentin, and ED specimens was 0.9970, 0.9960, and 0.9988, respectively. The slope of the typical stress–strain curve of each specimen indicates the elastic modulus of that specimen. Judging from the slopes of all the materials in Figure 4 and Table 1, the elastic modulus of dentin was the highest, making it the stiffest material with a stiffness of 1653 ± 277.9 MPa. Furthermore, judging from the maximum stress and maximum strain of enamel, enamel tended to fracture earlier than the other specimens and was therefore considered a brittle material.


Comparison of mechanical property and role between enamel and dentin in the human teeth.

Chun K, Choi H, Lee J - J Dent Biomech (2014)

A typical stress–strain curve of the enamel, dentin, and ED specimens.ED: enamel–dentin.
© Copyright Policy - creative-commons
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2 - License 3
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3924884&req=5

fig4-1758736014520809: A typical stress–strain curve of the enamel, dentin, and ED specimens.ED: enamel–dentin.
Mentions: Figure 4 shows a typical stress–strain curve of a specific test specimen, which represents a stress–strain relationship in the enamel, dentin, and ED specimens. The linear regression equation indicated that R2 for the enamel, dentin, and ED specimens was 0.9970, 0.9960, and 0.9988, respectively. The slope of the typical stress–strain curve of each specimen indicates the elastic modulus of that specimen. Judging from the slopes of all the materials in Figure 4 and Table 1, the elastic modulus of dentin was the highest, making it the stiffest material with a stiffness of 1653 ± 277.9 MPa. Furthermore, judging from the maximum stress and maximum strain of enamel, enamel tended to fracture earlier than the other specimens and was therefore considered a brittle material.

Bottom Line: However, judging from the measured hardness values, enamel was considered harder than dentin.Therefore, enamel has higher wear resistance, making it suitable for grinding and crushing foods, and dentin has higher force resistance, making it suitable for absorbing bite forces.The different mechanical roles of enamel and dentin may arise from their different compositions and internal structures, as revealed through scanning electron micrographs of enamel and dentin.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Advanced BioMedical Enginnering, Korea Institute of Industrial Technology, Cheonan-si, Republic of Korea.

ABSTRACT
The mechanical properties of enamel and dentin were studied using test specimens having the same shape and dimensions because these properties might vary with the experimental conditions and specimen shapes and dimensions. Healthy human teeth were used as specimens for mechanical tests. The stress (MPa), strain (%), and elastic modulus (E, MPa) of the specimens were obtained from compression tests. The maximum stresses of the enamel, dentin, and enamel-dentin specimens were 62.2 ± 23.8, 193.7 ± 30.6, and 126.1 ± 54.6 MPa, respectively. The maximum strains of the enamel, dentin, and enamel-dentin specimens were 4.5 ± 0.8%, 11.9 ± 0.1%, and 8.7 ± 2.7%, respectively. The elastic moduli of the enamel, dentin, and enamel-dentin specimens were 1338.2 ± 307.9, 1653.7 ± 277.9, and 1628.6 ± 482.7 MPa, respectively. The measured hardness value of enamel specimens (HV = 274.8 ± 18.1) was around 4.2 times higher than that of dentin specimens (HV = 65.6 ± 3.9). Judging from the measured values of the stress and strain of enamel specimens, enamel tended to fracture earlier than dentin; therefore, it was considered more brittle than dentin. However, judging from the measured hardness values, enamel was considered harder than dentin. Therefore, enamel has higher wear resistance, making it suitable for grinding and crushing foods, and dentin has higher force resistance, making it suitable for absorbing bite forces. The different mechanical roles of enamel and dentin may arise from their different compositions and internal structures, as revealed through scanning electron micrographs of enamel and dentin.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus