Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wbk2r Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-22T01:57:08.308Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Quantitatively Studying Nano-mechanical Properties within the Prism and Organic Sheath of Enamel

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2011

Fuzhai Cui ,
Jun Ge  and
Xiumei Wang
Fuzhai Cui
Affiliation:
Biomaterials Laboratory, Department of Materials Science & Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China.
Jun Ge
Affiliation:
Biomaterials Laboratory, Department of Materials Science & Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China.
Xiumei Wang
Affiliation:
Biomaterials Laboratory, Department of Materials Science & Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China.
Get access

Abstract

Enamel is made up of enamel prisms separated by thin layer of organic sheaths. The mechanical properties of the prisms and the organic sheaths are obviously different from each other due to different compositions and microstructures. However, quantitative measurements of such differences have been a challenge in the past. The objective of this study is to accurately study the mechanical properties in the isolated domains within single enamel prism. The technique of nanoindentation combined with Atomic Force Microscopy (AFM) was employed to test the enamel specimens from mature human maxillary third molar. It was revealed that the nanohardness and elastic modulus of the sheaths were about 73.6% and 52.7% lower than those of the prisms. AFM topographies of the residual indent impressions also visually confirmed the differences. In addition to nanoindentation tests, the microstructures of enamel were carefully investigated in terms of hierarchical levels of organization to understand the structural reasons of the mechanical differences. We found a close relation between the variations of mechanical properties of enamel and its hierarchical structure. The analysis of the mechanical properties within enamel upon hierarchy is not only helpful to understand its unique property, but may also inspire ideas for the design of novel synthetic materials.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 874: Symposium l – Structure and Mechanical Behavior of Biological Materials , 2005 , L3.6/BB3.6
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2005

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. Black, J., Hastings, G., Handbook of Biomaterial Properties, 1st ed. (Chapman & Hall, London, UK, 1998) p. 24.Google Scholar
2. Ge, J., Cui, F. Z., Wang, X. M., Ji, N., Faller, R. V., Eur. J. Oral Sci. Accepted (2005).Google Scholar
3. Boyde, A., Proc. Roy. Soc. Med. 60, 923–928 (1967).Google Scholar
4. Farina, M., Schemmel, A., Weissmüller, G., Cruz, R., Kachar, B., and Bisch, P. M., J. Struc. Biol. 125, 39–49 (1999).Google Scholar
5. Boyde, A., Proceedings of Ciba Foundation Symposium 205 (John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester, UK, 1997) p. 18–31.Google Scholar
6. Cate, A. R. Ten, Oral Histology, Development, Structure, and Function, 5th ed. (Mosby-Year Book Inc., St. Louis, Missouri, USA, 1998).Google Scholar
7. Risnes, S., J. Hum. Evol. 35, 331–350 (1998).Google Scholar
8. Warshawsky, H., Josephsen, K., Thylstrup, A., and Fejerskov, O., Anat. Rec. 200, 371–399 (1981).Google Scholar
9. Habelitz, S., Marshall, S. J., Marshall, G. W. Jr, and Balooch, M., Arch. Oral. Biol. 46, 173–183 (2001).Google Scholar
10. Cuy, J. L., Mann, A. B., Livi, K. J., Teaford, M. F., and Weihs, T. P., Arch. Oral. Biol. 47, 281–291 (2002).Google Scholar
11. Oliver, W. C., and Pharr, G. M., J. Mater. Res. 7, 1564–1583 (1992).Google Scholar
12. Hengsberger, S., Kulik, A., Zysset, P., Bone 30, 178–184 (2002).Google Scholar
13. Fincham, A. G., and Simmer, J. P., Proceedings of Ciba Foundation Symposium 205 (John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester, UK, 1997) p. 118–130.Google Scholar
14. Weiner, S., and Wagner, H. D., Annu. Rev. Mater. Sci. 28, 271–298 (1998).Google Scholar
15. Boyde, A., Bull. Group. Int. Rech. Sci. Stomatol. 12, 151–207 (1969).Google Scholar
16. Popowics, T. E., Rensberger, J. M., and Herring, S. W., Arch. Oral. Biol. 49, 595–605 (2004).Google Scholar