Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 701

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

T he M echanical P roperties of H uman D entin: a C ritical R eview and R e-evaluation of the D ental L iterature

Kinney, J.H., Marshall, S.J., Marshall, G.W.·2003·Critical Reviews in Oral Biology & Medicine

Abstract

The past 50 years of research on the mechanical properties of human dentin are reviewed. Since the body of work in this field is highly inconsistent, it was often necessary to re-analyze prior studies, when possible, and to re-assess them within the framework of composite mechanics and dentin structure. A critical re-evaluation of the literature indicates that the magnitudes of the elastic constants of dentin must be revised considerably upward. The Young’s and shear moduli lie between 20-25 GPa and 7-10 GPa, respectively. Viscoelastic behavior (time-dependent stress relaxation) measurably reduces these values at strain rates of physiological relevance; the reduced modulus (infinite relaxation time) is about 12 GPa. Furthermore, it appears as if the elastic properties are anisotropic (not the same in all directions); sonic methods detect hexagonal anisotropy, although its magnitude appears to be small. Strength data are re-interpreted within the framework of the Weibull distribution function. The large coefficients of variation cited in all strength studies can then be understood in terms of a distribution of flaws within the dentin specimens. The apparent size-effect in the tensile and shear strength data has its origins in this flaw distribution, and can be quantified by the Weibull analysis. Finally, the relatively few fracture mechanics and fatigue studies are discussed. Dentin has a fatigue limit. For stresses smaller than the normal stresses of mastication, ∼ 30 MPa, a flaw-free dentin specimen apparently will not fail. However, a more conservative approach based on fatigue crack growth rates indicates that if there is a pre-existing flaw of sufficient size (∼ 0.3-1.0 mm), it can grow to catastrophic proportion with cyclic loading at stresses below 30 MPa.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/154411130301400103

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 701

Metadata

Authors
Kinney, J. H., Marshall, S. J., & Marshall, G. W.
Venue
Critical Reviews in Oral Biology & Medicine
Published
2003-01
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
13-29
ISSN
  • 1045-4411 (ISSN-L)
  • 1544-1113
OpenAlex
W2143989407
Cited by
701
References
1
FWCI
26.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: T he M echanical P roperties of H uman D entin: a C ritical R eview and R e-evaluation of the D ental L iterature. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/154411130301400103
The paper
Kinney, J. H., Marshall, S. J., & Marshall, G. W. (2003). T he M echanical P roperties of H uman D entin: a C ritical R eview and R e-evaluation of the D ental L iterature. Critical Reviews in Oral Biology & Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1177/154411130301400103

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.