Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-l4ctd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-23T02:55:06.409Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Atomic force Microscopy to Quantify Local Mechanical Properties Of Tissue

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 February 2011

S. Tsai
Affiliation:
University of Michigan, Department of Biologic and Materials Sciences University of Michigan, Department of Biomedical Engineering
Rib. Rutherford
Affiliation:
University of Michigan, Department of Cariology, Restorative Sciences and Endodontics
B.H. Clarkson
Affiliation:
University of Michigan, Department of Cariology, Restorative Sciences and Endodontics
D.H. Kohn
Affiliation:
University of Michigan, Department of Biologic and Materials Sciences University of Michigan, Department of Biomedical Engineering
Get access

Abstract

For regenerated tissue to be fully functional, it must exhibit the mechanical integrity of normal tissue. Because of the composite nature of tissues, regional variation in properties, and the fact that macroscopic mechanical testing is not always feasible with regenerated tissue, microscopic approaches are needed to better delineate structure-function relations. We have been utilizing an atomic force microscope (AFM) in conjunction with a picoindentation attachment to determine local, sub-micron level mechanical properties of normal and regenerated tissues. As representative data to establish the validity of this approach, regional hardness and stiffness values for dentin are presented. Repeated measures ANOVA indicated that moduli were site-specific. However, local variations at a given point (e.g. properties at < lpm spatial displacement) were less than site to site variations, validating the efficacy of the technique. Hardness and elasticity may be considered quantitative measures of degree of mineralization, enabling linkage between mechanical, structural, and biological measures of tissue regeneration.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1999

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

1. Krebsbach, P.H., Mankani, M., Satomura, K., Kuznetsov, S. and Gehron-Robey, P., Transplantation 66, 12721278 (1998).Google Scholar
2. Franceschi, R.T., Wang, D., Gu, D., Rutherford, R.B., J. Dent. Res., in press.Google Scholar
3. Rutherford, R.B., Spangberg, L., Tucker, M., Rueger, D. and Charette, M., Arch. Oral Biol. 39, 833838 (1994).Google Scholar
4. Chang, S.R.,Chiego, D.J. Jr. andClarkson, B.H., Calcif. Tissue Int. 59, 149153 (1996).Google Scholar
5. Rutherford, R.B., Gu, D., Franceschi, R.T., J. Dent. Res. 77, 200 (1998).Google Scholar
6. D‘Errico, J., MacNeil, R., Takata, T., Berry, J., Strayhorn, C. and Somerman, M., Bone 20, 117126 (1997).Google Scholar
7. Giannobile, W.V., Bone 19, 23S37S (1996).Google Scholar
8. Garberoglio, R. and Brannstrom, M., Arch. Oral Biol. 21, 355362 (1976).Google Scholar
9. Fosse, G., Saele, P.K., and Eibe, R., Acta Odontol. Scand. 50, 201210 (1992).Google Scholar
10. Rho, J.Y., Tsui, T.Y. and Pharr, G.M., Biomat. 18, 13251330 (1997).Google Scholar
11. Ziv, V., Wagner, H.D., Weiner, S., Bone 18, 417428 (1996).Google Scholar
12. Kinney, J.H., Balooch, M., Marshall, S.J., Marshall, G.W. Jr., andWeihs, T.P., Arch.Oral. Biol. 41, 913 (1996).Google Scholar
13. Oliver, W.C. and Pharr, G.M., J. Mater. Res. 7(6), 15641583 (1992).Google Scholar
14. Pashley, D., Okabe, A, and Parham, P., Endod. Dent. Traumatol. 1, 176179 (1985).Google Scholar
15. Balooch, M., Wu-Magidi, I-C., Balazs, A., Lundkvist, A.S., Marshall, S.J., Siekhaus, W.J. and Kinney, J.H., J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 40, 539544 (1997).Google Scholar