Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine

Title abbreviation: Adv Clin Exp Med
5-Year IF – 2.0, IF – 1.9, JCI (2024) – 0.43
Scopus CiteScore – 4.3
Q1 in SJR 2024, SJR score – 0.598, H-index: 49 (SJR)
ICV – 161.00; MNiSW – 70 pts
Initial editorial assessment and first decision within 24 h

ISSN 1899–5276 (print), ISSN 2451-2680 (online)
Periodicity – monthly

Download original text (EN)

Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine

2017, vol. 26, nr 4, July, p. 645–653

doi: 10.17219/acem/67441

PubMed ID: 28691430

Publication type: original article

Language: English

Download citation:

  • BIBTEX (JabRef, Mendeley)
  • RIS (Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero)

The mechanical properties of human dentin for 3-D finite element modeling: Numerical and analytical evaluation

Wojciech Grzebieluch1,A,B,C,D,F, Romuald Będziński2,E,F, Tomasz Czapliński3,B,C,D, Urszula Kaczmarek1,D,E,F

1 Department of Conservative Dentistry and Pedodontics, Wroclaw Medical University, Poland

2 Division of Biomedical Engineering, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Zielona Góra, Poland

3 Nobo Solutions S.A. Wrocław, Poland

Abstract

Background. The FEM is often used in investigations of dentin loading conditions; however, its anisotropy is mostly neglected.
Objectives. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the anisotropy and the elastic properties of an equivalent homogenous material model of human dentin as well as to compare isotropic and anisotropic dentin FE-models.
Material and Methods. Analytical and numerical dentin homogenization according to Luciano and Barbero was performed and E-modulus (E), Poisson’s ratios (v) G-modulus (G) were calculated. The E-modulus of the dentin matrix was 28.0 GPa, Poisson’s ratio (v) was 0.3; finite element models of orthotropic and isotropic dentin were created, loaded and compared using Ansys® 14.5 and CodeAster® 11.2 software.
Results. Anisotropy of the dentin ranged from 6.9 to 35.2%. E-modulus and G-modulus were as follows: E1 = 22.0–26.0 GPa, E2/E3 = 15.7–23.0 GPa; G12/G13 = 6.96–9.35 GPa and G23 = 6.08–8.09 GPa (highest values in the superficial layer). In FEM analysis of the displacement values were higher in the isotropic than in the orthotropic model, reaching up to 16% by shear load, 37% by compression and 23% in the case of shear with bending. Strain values were higher in the isotropic model, up to 35% for the shear load, 31% for compression and 35% in the case of shear with bending. The decrease in the volumetric fraction and diameter of tubules increased the G and E values.
Conclusion. Anisotropy of the dentin applied during FEM analysis decreased the displacements and strain values. The numerical and analytical homogenization of dentin showed similar results.

Key words

finite element method, anisotropy, dentin, homogenization

References (28)

  1. Lomov SV, Ivanov DS, Verpoest I, et al. Meso-FE modelling of textile composites: Road map, data flow and algorithms. Compos Sci Technol. 2007;67:1870–1891.
  2. Peng X, Cao J. A dual homogenization and finite element approach for material characterization of textile composites. Compos Part B-Eng. 2002;33:45–56.
  3. Ferrari M, Sorrentino R, Zarone F, Apicella D, Aversa R, Apicella A. Non-linear viscoelastic finite element analysis of the effect of the length of glass fiber posts on the biomechanical behaviour of directly restored incisors and surrounding alveolar bone. Dent Mater J. 2008;27:485–498.
  4. Tajima K, Chen K, Takahashi N, Noda N, Nagamatsu Y, Kakigawa H. Three-dimensional finite element modeling from CT images of tooth and its validation. Dent Mater J. 2009;28:219–226.
  5. Yamanel K, Caglar A, Gülsahi K, Ozden UA. Effects of different ceramic and composite materials on stress distribution in inlay and onlay cavities: 3-D finite element analysis. Dent Mater J. 2009;28:661–670.
  6. Magne P. Efficient 3D finite element analysis of dental restorative procedures using micro-CT data. Dent Mater. 2007;23:539–548.
  7. Poiate IA, Vasconcellosa AB, Mori M, Poiate E Jr. 2D and 3D finite element analysis of central incisor generated by computerized tomography. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2011;104:292–299.
  8. Kishen A, Vedantam S. Hydromechanics in dentin: Role of dentinal tubules and hydrostatic pressure on mechanical stress-strain distribution. Dent Mater. 2007;23:1296–1306.
  9. Miuraa J, Maedaa Y, Nakaib H, Zakob M. Multiscale analysis of stress distribution in teeth under applied forces. Dent Mater. 2009;25:67–73.
  10. Luciano R, Barbero EJ. Formulas for the stiffness of composites with periodic microstructure. Int J Solids Structures. 1994;31:2933-2944.
  11. Eshelby JD. The determination of the elastic field of an ellipsoidal inclusion and related problems. Proc R Soc A. 1957;241:376–396.
  12. Mori T, Tanaka K. Average stress in matrix and average elastic energy of materials with misfitting inclusions. Actas Metall. 1973;21:571–574.
  13. Gommers B, Verpoest I, Van Houtte P. The Mori-Tanaka method applied to textile composite materials. Acta Mater. 1998;46:2223–2235.
  14. Kinney J H, Marshall SJ, Marshall GW. The mechanical properties of human dentin: A critical review and re-evaluation of the dental literature. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med. 2003;14:13–29.
  15. Inoue T, Takahashi H, Nishimura F. Anisotropy of tensile strengths of bovine Dentin regarding dentinal tubule orientation and location. Dent Mater J. 2002;21:32–42.
  16. Schilke R, Lisson JA, Bauss O, Geurtsen W. Comparison of the number and diameter of dentinal tubules in human and bovine dentin by scanning electron microscopic investigation. Arch Oral Biol. 2000;45:355–361.
  17. Harrán Ponce E, Canalda Sahli C, Vilar Fernandez JA. Study of dentinal tubule architecture of permanent upper premolars: Evaluation by SEM. Aust Endod J. 2001;27:66–72.
  18. Schmalz G, Hiller KA, Loys J. Nunez LJ, Stoll J, Weis K. Permeability characteristics of bovine and human dentin under different pretreatment conditions. J Endod. 2001;27:23–30.
  19. Inoue S, Pereira PN, Kawamoto C, et al. Effect of depth and tubule direction on ultimate tensile strength of human coronal dentin. Dent Mater J. 2003;22:39–47.
  20. Lopes MB, Sinhoreti MA, Gonini Júnior A, Consani S, McCabe JF. Comparative study of tubular diameter and quantity for human and bovine dentin at different depths. Braz Dent J. 2009;20:279–283.
  21. Kinney JH, Balooch M, Marshall GW, Marshall SJ. A micromechanics model of the elastic properties of human dentin. Arch Oral Biol. 1999;44:813–822.
  22. Schroeder HE. Oral structural biology: Embryology, structure, and function of normal hard and soft tissues of the oral cavity and temporomandibular joints. Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc., New York. 1991:103-118.
  23. Kinney JH, Gladden JR, Marshall GW, Marshall SJ, So JH, Maynard JD. Resonant ultrasound spectroscopy measurements of the elastic constants of human dentin. J Biomech. 2004;37:437–441.
  24. Inoue T, Takahashi H, Nishimura F. Anisotropy of tensile strengths of bovine dentin regarding dentinal tubule orientation and location. Dent Mat J. 2002;21:32–43.
  25. Chowdhary N, Subba Reddy VV. Dentin comparison in primary and permanent molars under transmitted and polarised light microscopy: An in vitro study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2010;28:162–172.
  26. Miur J, Maeda Y, Nakai H, Zako M. Multiscale analysis of stress distribution in teeth under applied forces. Dent Mater. 2009;25:67–73.
  27. Shinno Y, Ishimoto T, Saito M, et al. Comprehensive analyses of how tubule occlusion and advanced glycation end-products diminish strength of aged dentin. Sci Rep. 2016;6:19849, doi: 10.1038/srep19849.
  28. Panfilov P, Zaytsev D, Antonova OV, Alpatova V, Kiselnikova LP. The difference of structural state and deformation behavior between teenage and mature human dentin. Int J Biomater. 2016;2016:6073051. doi: 10.1155/2016/6073051. Epub 2016 Feb 16.
© Wroclaw Medical University