This Article Abstract Full Text Full Text (PDF) Data Supplement Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Baldassarri, M. Articles by Beniash, E. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Baldassarri, M. Articles by Beniash, E. Pubmed/NCBI databases Compound via MeSH Substance via MeSH Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Compositional Determinants of Mechanical Properties of Enamel

¹ Department of Biomineralization, The Forsyth Institute, Boston, MA, USA; and
² Department of Developmental Biology, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA, USA

View larger version (154K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 1. Optical micrographs of rat incisors cut in the mid-sagittal (a) and transverse (b) planes, which are normal to each other; black lines outline the dentinoenamel junction (DEJ). SEM-BSE micrographs of enamel polished in the mid-sagittal (c) and transverse (d) planes illustrate the difference in the enamel rod organization in these 2 planes. Note that the crack in (b) is a consequence of specimen preparation. Since the samples were not embedded, but rather were mounted in resin, the pulp cavity remained unfilled; this led to macro-cracking of the sample during polishing. However, this crack did not affect the enamel integrity at the microscopic level.

View larger version (14K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 2. Plots of the hardness (a) and fracture toughness (b) of rat incisor enamel in 4 experimental groups, namely, wet untreated, dry untreated, dry treated, and wet treated, collected in the mid-sagittal () and transverse () planes. Error bars represent standard deviation values based on data obtained from 3 incisors per compositional group.

View larger version (147K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 3. Optical micrographs representing characteristic damage produced by the microindenter in dry-untreated (a) and dry-treated (b) samples in the mid-sagittal plane. SEM-BSE micrographs demonstrating indentation damage in dry-treated samples in the mid-sagittal plane (c), and dry-treated samples in the transverse plane (arrows indicate areas of dentin attached to enamel) (d).

Journal of Dental Research, Vol. 87, No. 7, 645-649 (2008)
DOI: 10.1177/154405910808700711


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?