ON THE MICROHARDNESS AND YOUNG S MODULUS OF HUMAN TEETH A.D.Zervaki 1, G.N. Haidemenopoulos 1 and A. Giannakopoulos 2 1. Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Thessaly, Volos, Greece 2. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Thessaly, Volos, Greece
AIM OF THE WORK Determination of material hardness (H), and elastic properties such as Young s modulus (E). Acquire knowledge of the physical properties of teeth and tissues : Important aid for understanding their mechanical behavior under clinical loading conditions Knoop indentation test enables the E value of human teeth to be obtained in a simple fashion and has potential to be used as a quality control tool in the development of dental implants or prosthetic teeth. Biomimetic aspects in mechanical engineering: design better coatings
OUTLINE Introduction Teeth structure Theoretical Background Determination of E from H Experimental Procedure Sectioning teeth and measuring hardness Results & Discussion Correlation between hardness and modulus Conclusions
Human Tooth, Structure Enamel: Enamel Dentine The hardest and most highly mineralized substance of the body. It consists of 96 % of hydroxyapatite, with water and organic material composing the rest. Dentine: Hydrated composite of mineralized collagen fibers and nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite, with ~ 45% hydroxyapatite, 35 % collagen, 20% water (by volume). Dentine consists of microscopic channels (dentinal tubules) which radiate outward through the dentine and contain fluid and cellular structures.
Recovery of Knoop indentation Material Properties including hardness (H), Young s modulus (E) and fracture toughness can be calculated from measurements taken from Knoop & Vickers indentations. Elastic recovery of Knoop indentation (elastic-plastic indentation). Geometry of Knoop indenter is also given at the upper part of the figure.
Methods of obtaining E Marshall s method based on the measurement of elastic recovery of the in-surface dimensions of Knoop indentations b a b a a1 b b α H = 1 a a E ratio of the diagonal dimensions a and b in the fully loaded state = 0.140646 ratio of the altered dimensions after unloading proportionality constant Conway s method relates Η/Ε to the residual length of a minor diagonal (b) of Knoop indentations b b 2 = 1 2 v Poisson s ratio γ H E 2 [( ) ] 1 ν tanγ average half angle of a Knoop indenter 75 o Marshall et al, Comm. American Cer. Soc. 65(10), (1982), p. 175-176 Conway, J. Mat. Sci., 21 (1986) p.2525-2527
Experimental Procedure Specimen Preparation Dental extraction Longitudinal sectioning using a low speed diamond wheel Mounting in an epoxy resin Grinding with SiC papers 120, 320, 500, 800 and 1000 grit Polishing with diamond paste of 3 and 1 μm diameter Specimen Examination, Microhardnes Measurements Optical Metallography Microhardness testing (Vickers and Knoop indenters) Instrument reliability was verified by using calibrated test blocks
Hardness and Modulus Values of Knoop hardness for enamel and dentine were calculated as follows H = 1450 F 10 2 a 3 H: Knoop hardness number F: Force in Nt (0.98) α: length of the longer diagonal in μm. Values of Young s modulus (E) for enamel and dentine at different indentation distances were calculated by rearranging Marshal s equation in terms of E: α E = 1H b b α α where: b ratio of the diagonal dimensions a and b in the fully loaded state = 0.140646 a b a ratio of the altered dimensions after unloading a constant 1 1.5 Marshall s theoretical calculation using elliptical indenter 0.45 Marshall s experimentally derived value 0.34 Meredith s proposed value
Results enamel dentine Macroscopic appearance of a preparation described previously human tooth subjected to the specimen
Results Amelodentinal junction dentine 43 HV 0,1 enamel 307 HV 0,1 301 HV 0,1 Tooth surface Typical Vickers Microhardness measurements in enamel and dentine
Typical Knoop Indentations Load: 100gr enamel dentine Residual Surface impressions after Knoop microhardness measurements in enamel and dentine
Results & Discussion dentine enamel Microhardness profile. Measurements were taken at distances of 150 μm.
Microhardness - Enamel 300 Knoop hardnes, HK 250 200 150 Enamel 100 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 Distance from enamel surface, μm Knoop microhardness in enamel with distance from the tooth surface
Microhardness - Dentine Knoop hardness, HK 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 Dentine 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 Distance from amelodentinal junction, μm Knoop microhardness in dentine with distance from the amelodentinal junction
Young s modulus - Enamel Enamel Young's modulus, GNm -2 160 140 120 100 80 60 α 1 =0.34 α 1 =0.45 α 1 =1.5 40 20 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 Distance from tooth surface, μm Calculated Values for Young s Modulus of Enamel with distance from tooth surface
Young s modulus - Dentine Young's modulus, GNm -2 35 30 25 20 15 Dentine α 1 =0.34 α 1 =0.45 α 1 =1.5 10 5 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 Distance from amelodentinal junction, μm Calculated Values for Young s Modulus of Dentine with distance from amelodentinal junction
H-E correlation in Enamel 300 200 280 Enamel Knoop hardness, HK 260 240 220 200 180 160 140 175 150 125 100 75 Young's modulus, E (GNm -2 ) 120 100 50 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 Distance from enamel surface, μm
H-E correlation Dentine Knoop hardness, HK 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 Dentine 40 35 30 25 20 15 Young's modulus, E (GNm -2 ) 30 10 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 Distance from amelodentinal junction, μm
Conclusions Knoop, as well as, Vickers microhardness were determined for enamel and dentine and are in good agreement with other results reported in the literature. Microhardness of both enamel and dentine varied with depth Young s modulus was determined by utilizing the method described by Marsall et all. Our values are in good agreement with those of other researchers. The variation of E with distance from the tooth surface and from the amelodentinal junction correlates with the variation of microhardness.