Influence of the indenter tip geometry and environment on the indentation 
modulus of enamel

Guidoni, Griselda M.; He, Lihong; Schöberl, Thomas; Jäger, Ingomar; Dehm, Gerhard; Swain, Michael V.

doi:10.1557/JMR.2009.0110

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT

Add to Basket

Local TagsRelease HistoryDetailsSummary

Released

Journal Article

Influence of the indenter tip geometry and environment on the indentation modulus of enamel

MPS-Authors

There are no MPG-Authors in the publication available

External Resource

No external resources are shared

Fulltext (restricted access)

There are currently no full texts shared for your IP range.

Fulltext (public)

There are no public fulltexts stored in PuRe

Supplementary Material (public)

There is no public supplementary material available

Citation

Guidoni, G. M., He, L., Schöberl, T., Jäger, I., Dehm, G., & Swain, M. V. (2009). Influence of the indenter tip geometry and environment on the indentation modulus of enamel. Journal of Materials Research, 24(3), 616-625. doi:10.1557/JMR.2009.0110.

Cite as: https://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-001M-0000-0024-4740-0

Abstract

The aim of the investigation was to study the influence of indenter tip geometry on the conventionally obtained indentation modulus of enamel by nanoindentation. Indentation tests on bovine enamel using three different diamond pyramidal indenters with half face angles 65.27°, 45°, and 35.26° were conducted to evaluate the indentation modulus using the Oliver–Pharr method [W.C. Oliver and G.M. Pharr, J. Mater. Res. 7, 1564 (1992)]. In addition, three different dehydration conditions were studied: wet under Hank’s balanced salt solution, laboratory dried, and vacuum dehydrated. For the Berkovich indenter (65.27°) and 45° pyramidal indenters, there was only a small difference between indentation modulus values, whereas for the cube-corner indenter (35.26°) a ratio of 2.4 between laboratory dry and wet samples was found. A detailed evaluation, including indentation creep and recovery as well as pileup, resulted in a reduction of this latter ratio to 1.7. This still large difference was rationalized on the basis of the different deformation mechanisms generated by indenters of different face angles.