Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T07:19:56.273Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Microstructure and interfacial fracture at the cementum-enamel junctions in equine and bovine teeth

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2006

Rizhi Wang ,
Youxin Hu  and
Cathy Ng
Rizhi Wang*
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Z4
Youxin Hu
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Z4
Cathy Ng
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Z4
*
a) Address all correspondence to this author. e-mail: rzwang@interchange.ubc.ca
Get access

Abstract

The cementum–enamel junction (CEJ) is a unique interface that plays a critical role in effectively transferring force from the top of the tooth to the jawbone. A comparative study of bovine and equine teeth has been carried out experimentally to establish the relationship among the interfacial structure, fracture resistance, and mechanical functions. The CEJs were analyzed by optical microscopy and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Microhardness and elastic modulus were measured with a Vickers microhardness tester and a nanoindentation system. A modified cantilever beam technique was used to study CEJ fracture process and the toughness (Gc,). It was observed that CEJ is a distinct interface connecting the hard enamel (200–350 kg/mm2) with the soft cementum (∼20–30 kg/mm2). Bovine CEJ was macroscopically flat and smooth. However, under SEM, a close integration of cementum bumps and enamel pits at the 5 μm level and dimples at the 200 nm level were clearly seen. In equine CEJ, the similar flat cementum–enamel interface was interrupted by hemispherical cementum protrusions (average size of 28.3 μm) at high density (340/mm2). Despite the microscopic roughness, bovine CEJ was easy to fracture at relatively low toughness (128 J/m2). The measured toughness for equine CEJ was about seven times that of bovine (1140 J/m2). The high toughness has been attributed to the mechanical interlocking provided by the cementum protrusions. The underlying crack bridging mechanism and the applications to the design of orthopaedic implants are briefly discussed.

Keywords

BiologicalBiomimetic toughnessToughness
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Materials Research , Volume 21 , Issue 8 , August 2006 , pp. 2146 - 2155
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Evans, A.G., Mumm, D.R., Hutchinson, J.W., Meier, G.H., Pettit, F.S.: Mechanisms controlling the durability of thermal-barrier coatings. Prog. Mater. Sci. 46, 505 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Wang, R., Mercer, C., Evans, A.G., Cooper, C.V., Yoon, H.K.: Delamination and spalling of diamond-like-carbon tribological surfaces. Diamond Relat. Mater. 11, 1797 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Furlong, R.J., Osborn, J.F.: Fixation of hip protheses by hydroxyapatite ceramic coatings. J. Bone Joint Surg. 73B, 741 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Clemens, J.A.M., Wolke, J.G.C., Klein, C.P.A.T., de Groot, K.: Fatigue behavior of calcium phosphate coatings with different stability under dry and wet conditions. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 48, 741 (1999).3.0.CO;2-#>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Jaffe, W.L., Scott, D.F.: Total hip arthroplasty with hydroxyapatite-coated prostheses. J. Bone Joint Surg. 78A, 1918 (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Imbeni, V., Kruzic, J.J., Marshall, G.W., Marshall, S.J., Ritchie, R.O.: The dentin-enamel junction and the fracture of human teeth. Nat. Mater. 4, 229 (2005).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Wang, R.Z., Weiner, S.: Strain-structure relations in human teeth using Moire fringes. J. Biomech. 31, 135 (1998).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.White, S.N., Paine, M.L., Luo, W., Sarikaya, M., Fong, H., Yu, Z.K., Li, Z.C., Snead, M.L.: The dentino-enamel junction is a broad transitional zone uniting dissimilar bioceramic composites. J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 83, 238 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Ho, S.P., Balooch, M., Marshall, S.J., Marshall, G.W.: Local properties of a functionally graded interphase between cementum and dentin. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 70A, 480 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Weiner, S., Addadi, L.: Design strategies in mineralized biological materials. J. Mater. Chem. 7, 689 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Cate, A.R. Ten: Oral Histology: Development, Structure, and Function 5th ed. (Mosby, St. Louis, MO, 1994), p. 218.Google Scholar
12.Baker, G.J., Easley, J.: Equine Dentistry 1st ed. (W.B. Saunders, London, UK, 1999), pp. 3–28.Google Scholar
13.Listgarten, M.A.: A light and electron microscopy study of coronal cementogenesis. Archs Oral Biol. 13, 93 (1968).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Jones, S.J., Boyde, A.: Coronal cementogenesis in the horse. Archs Oral Biol. 19, 605 (1974).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.de Groot, K., Wolke, J.G.C., Jansen, J.A.: Calcium phosphate coatings for medical implants. Proc Inst. Mech Eng. H. J. Eng. Med. 212, 137 (1998).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Xie, J.W., Baumann, M.J., McCabe, L.R.: Osteoblasts respond to hydroxyapatite surfaces with immediate changes in gene expression. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 71A, 108 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Mills, P.B., Irving, J.T.: Coronal cementogenesis in cattle. Archs Oral Biol. 12, 929 (1967).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Kilic, S., Dixon, P.M., Kempson, S.A.: A light microscopic and ultrastructural examination of calcified dental tissues of horses: 4. Cement and the amelocemental junction. Equine Vet. J. 29, 213 (1997).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Obreimoff, J.W.: The splitting strength of mica. Proc. R. Soc. London, A 127, 290 (1930).Google Scholar
20.Lawn, B.: Fracture of Brittle Solids 2nd ed. (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK, 1993), pp. 10, 11, 37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21.Evans, A.G., Charles, E.A.: Fracture toughness determinations by indentation. J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 59, 371 (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22.Zhang, J., Lewandowski, J.J.: Interfacial fracture-toughness measurement using indentation. J. Mater. Sci. 29, 4022 (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23.Imbeni, V., Kruzic, J.J., Marshall, G.W., Marshall, S.J., Ritchie, R.O.: The dentin-enamel junction and the fracture of human teeth. Nat. Mater. 4, 229 (2005).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24.Frandson, R.D.: Anatomy and Physiology of Farm Animals 4th ed. (Lea & Febiger, Philadelphia, PA, 1986), pp. 309–335.Google Scholar
25.Bobyn, J.D., Pilliar, R.M., Cameron, H.U., Weatherly, G.C.: The optimum pore size for the fixation of porous-surfaced metal implants by the ingrowth of bone. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 150, 263 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26.Schmalzried, T.P., Harris, W.H.: The Harris–Galante porous-coated acetabular component with screw fixation—Radiographic analysis of 83 primary hip replacements at a minimum of 5 years. J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. 74A, 1130 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27.Bobyn, J.D., Stackpool, G.J., Hacking, S.A., Tanzer, M., Krygier, J.J.: Characteristics of bone ingrowth and interface mechanics of a new porous tantalum biomaterial. J. Bone Joint Surg. Brit. 81B, 907 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28.Bornstein, M.M., Schmid, B., Belser, U.C., Lussi, A., Buser, D.: Early loading of non-submerged titanium implants with a sandblasted and acid-etched surface. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 16, 631 (2005).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29.Wang, R.: Anisotropic fracture in bovine root and coronal dentin. Dent. Mater. 21, 429 (2005).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed