Filtern
Dokumenttyp
- Zeitschriftenartikel (2) (entfernen)
Sprache
- Englisch (2)
Schlagworte
- Indentation hardness (2) (entfernen)
Organisationseinheit der BAM
An extensive comparison between the conventional Vickers hardness at 500 mN and indentation hardness measured with Vickers indenters at 500 mN is presented for up to 20 different materials and for three different instruments. Additionally, the indentation modulus is compared to Young’s modulus, which was measured with alternative methods or taken from the literature. It is shown that the agreement between the results from depth-sensing indentation and the reference values can be improved by additional corrections, for the calculation of the indentation area. With corrections the mean hardness difference to the Vickers hardness reference as average of all investigated materials can be reduced to about 10 % although disturbing pile-up or sink-in effects can still not be considered. For the modulus, the mean difference was only about 6 %.
Tooth wear induced by abrasive particles is a key process affecting dental function and life expectancy in mammals. Abrasive particles may be plant endogenous opal phytoliths, exogene wind-blown quartz dust or rain borne mineral particles ingested by mammals. Nano-indentation hardness of abrasive particles and dental tissues is a significant yet not fully established parameter of this tribological system. We provide consistent nano-indentation hardness data for some of the major antagonists in the dental tribosystem (tooth enamel, tooth dentine and opaline phytoliths from silica controlled cultivation). All indentation data were gathered from native tissues under stable and controlled conditions and thus maximize comparability to natural systems. Here we show that native (hydrated) wild boar enamel exceeds any hardness measures known for dry herbivore tooth enamel by at least 3 GPa. The native tooth enamel is not necessarily softer then environmental quartz grit, although there is little overlap. The native hardness of the tooth enamel exceeds that of any silica phytolith hardness recently published. Further, we find that native reed phytoliths equal native suine dentine in hardness, but does not exceed native suine enamel. We also find that native suine enamel is significantly harder than dry enamel and dry phytoliths are harder than native phytoliths. Our data challenge the claim that the culprit of tooth wear may be the food we chew, but suggest instead that wear may relates more to exogenous than endogenous abrasives.