4.6 Article

The relationship between Shore hardness of elastomeric dental materials and Young's modulus

期刊

DENTAL MATERIALS
卷 25, 期 8, 页码 956-959

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2009.02.001

关键词

Elastomer; Silicone; Mechanical testing; Elasticity; Shore A scale hardness; Young's modulus

资金

  1. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
  2. University of London Central Research Fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives. Hardness of elastomers can be directly related to Young's modulus, a relationship that was investigated in detail by Gent in a paper in 1958. The aim of this study was to test this relationship for 13 dental elastomers (12 silicone and 1 polyether) using the equation derived by Gent and one from BS 903 (1950) that accounts for departures at low values. Methods. The dental elastomers were subjected to tensile testing and Shore A scale hardness measurements. Young's moduli were calculated from the hardness values using the Gent equation and the BS 903 equation. These calculated values were then compared with values derived experimentally from the tensile tests. Results. Hardness values were in the range 30.2 (+/- 0.5)-62.9 (+/- 0.8) with the corresponding calculated modulus values in the range 1.1-4.1 MPa and 0.9-4.3 MPa for the Gent and modified equations, respectively. Young's modulus values derived from the tensile data were in the range 0.8 (+/- 0.3)-4.1 (+/- 0.3) MPa, showing good agreement with those calculated from the hardness values. Providing viscoelastic creep is minimal during the duration of the test, there is a reasonably well-defined relationship between Shore hardness and Young's modulus in the hardness range studied. Significance. Simple, non-destructive hardness measurements can be used to determine Young's modulus values. Such values are needed in any calculations of stress distributions in soft lining materials, e.g. by FEA. (C) 2009 Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据