Examination of local variations in viscous, elastic, and plastic indentation responses in healing bone

  • Michelle L. OyenEmail author
  • Ching-Chang Ko


A viscous-elastic-plastic indentation model was used to assess the local variability of properties in healing porcine bone. Constant loading- and unloading-rate depth-sensing indentation tests were performed and properties were computed from nonlinear curve-fits of the unloading displacement-time data. Three properties were obtained from the fit: modulus (the coefficient of an elastic reversible process), hardness (the coefficient of a nonreversible, time-independent process) and viscosity (the coefficient of a nonreversible, time-dependent process). The region adjacent to the dental implant interface demonstrated a slightly depressed elastic modulus along with an increase in local time-dependence (smaller viscosity); there was no clear trend in bone hardness with respect to the implant interface. Values of the elastic modulus and calculated contact hardness were comparable to those obtained in studies utilizing traditional elastic-plastic analysis techniques. The current approach to indentation data analysis shows promise for materials with time-dependent indentation responses.


Elastic Modulus Bone Sample Indentation Test Contact Hardness Indentation Response 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    W. C. OLIVER and G. M. PHARR, J. Mater. Res. 7 (1992) 1564.ADSGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    J.-Y. RHO, T. Y. TSUI and G.M. PHARR, Biomaterials 18 (1997) 1325.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    P. K. ZYSSET, X. E. GUO, C. E. HOFFLER, K. E. MOORE, and S. A. GOLDSTEIN, J. Biomech. 32 (1999) 1005.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    E. MAHONEY, A. HOLT, M. SWAIN, and N. KILPATRICK, J. Dent. 28 (2000) 589.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. C. CHANG, C.-C. KO, C.-C. LIU, W. H. DOUGLAS, R. DELONG, W.-J. SEONG, J. HODGES and K.-N. AN, J. Biomech. 36 (2003) 1209.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    W. TESCH, N. EIDELMAN, P. ROSCHGER, F. GOLDENBERG, K. KLAUSHOFER and P. FRATZL, Calcif Tissue Int. 69 (2001) 147.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. L. CUY, A. B. MANN, K. J. LIVI, M. F. TEAFORD, and T. P. WEIHS, Arch. Oral. Biol. 47 (2002) 281.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    T. CHUDOBA and F. RICHTER, Surface and Coatings Technology 148 (2001) 191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    M. L. OYEN and R. F. COOK, J. Mater. Res. 18 (2003) 139.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    A. J. BUSHBY, V. L. FERGUSON and A. BOYDE, J. Mater. Res. 19(2004) 249.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. SAKAI, J. Mater. Res. 14 (1999) 3630.ADSGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Z. FAN and J.-Y. RHO, J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 67A (2003) 208.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biophysical Sciences and Medical Physics and Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Women’s HealthMinneapolis
  2. 2.Minnesota Dental Research Center for Biomaterials and Biomechanics, Department of Oral SciencesUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolis

Personalised recommendations