HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text Full Text (PDF) Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (5) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by El Zohairy, A.A. Articles by Feilzer, A.J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by El Zohairy, A.A. Articles by Feilzer, A.J.

The Influence of Specimen Attachment and Dimension on Microtensile Strength

¹ Department of Dental Materials Science and
² Department of Functional Anatomy, Academic Center for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), Louwesweg 1, 1066 EA Amsterdam, the Netherlands;

View larger version (26K): [in a new window]   Figure 1. Schematic illustration of the stainless steel testing device (left, 3D front view; right, rear view) showing lateral attachment of a 1x1x10 mm microbar with the middle 2 mm left free. The upside-down U-shaped part A encloses an exactly (frictionless) fitting bar B, which is connected to A through a 0.35-mm-thick brass sheet glued at the back side of A and B (see rear view). The brass sheet allows hinge movement of B when force (F) is applied to B via a rod and ball. The pitch distance from the ball to the hinge is 80% of the distance from the specimen to the hinge, and to obtain the forces exerted on the specimen, the measured forces had to be multiplied by a value of 0.80.

View larger version (16K): [in a new window]   Figure 2. The five different ways of attaching the composite bars to the testing device. The upper and lower black surfaces indicate the sites that were bonded, each occupying 4 mm in length. The gauge length (middle) was 2 mm.

View larger version (34K): [in a new window]   Figure 3. Stress patterns in the middle 4 mm for the models with lateral attachment (models in top row) and top and bottom attachment (models in bottom row). For each of the models, the applied loads were the loads at fracture (Table). These loads were also applied for top and bottom attachment (bottom-row models). For lateral attachment, maximum major principle stresses were localized at approximately 0.2 mm from the fixed sites and were 70.8, 64.2, 56.0, 62.2, and 65.0 MPa (upper row from left to right). For top and bottom attachment, the major principle stresses were 44.3, 27.7, 19.0, 38.7, and 36.5 MPa (bottom row from left to right). The triangles and arrows indicate the stationary and moving sides of the models, respectively.