Microindentation in bone: Hardness variation with five independent variables



Microindentation is an investigational tool often used to determine hardness and other derived material properties of the material bone. This study explored the variation of microindentation hardness results with five independent variables. The variables were: applied mass, dwell time, drying time, time between indentation and measurement, and distance between the center of an indentation and the edge of other indentations and pores. These variables were selected because they represented a reasonable range of specimen investigational steps. We also investigated the cross sections of typical indentation residual impressions to determine the degree of material pile-up at the edges of the impressions. We found that microindentation hardness varied with applied mass and with distance between the indentation and neighboring indentations and pores but not with the other variables. Our recommended minimum applied mass is 0.10 kg versus a previously published value of 0.05 kg. We also found no discernable material pile-up at the residual impression edges, in contrast to reports of others.


Dwell Time Bovine Bone Hardness Variation Knoop Hardness Silver Plate 
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.
    S. HUJA, T. KATONA and W. ROBERTS, in “Mechanical testing of bone and the bone-implant interface” (CRC Press, Boca Raton (FL), 2000) p. 247.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    M. RAMRAKHIANI, D. PAL and T. MURTY, Acta Anat. 103 (1979) 358.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    P. RICHES, N. EVERITT, A. HEGGIE and D. MCNALLY, J. Biomech. 30(10) (1997) 1059.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    E. AMITAY-SADOVSKY and H. WAGNER, Poly. Commun. 39(11) (1998) 2387.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    B. LAWN, A. EVANS and D. MARSHALL, J. Am. Ceram. Soci. 63(9–10) (1980) 574.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    S. LUM and W. DUNCAN-HEWITT, Pharma. Res. 13(11) (1996) 1739.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    D. MARSHALL, T. NOMA and A. EVANS, Commun. Am. Ceram. Soci. 65 (1982) 175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. CURREY and K. BREAR, J. Mat. Sci. Mat. Med. 1 (1990) 14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    N. MEREDITH, M. SHERRIF, D. SETCHELL and S. SWANSON, Arch. Oral. Bio. 40(6) (1996) 539.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    H. XU, D. SMITH, S. JAHANMIR, E. ROMBERG, J. KELLY, V. THOMPSON and E. REKOW, J. Dent. Res. 77(3) (1998) 472.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    S. COWIN, in “Bone Mechanics”. (CRC Press, 2001) p. 6–12–6–19.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    G. VANDER VOORT and G. LUCAS, Advan. Mater. Pro. 154(3) (1998) 21.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    R. AMPRINO, Acta Anat. 34 (1958) 161.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    J. RHO and G. PHARR, J. Mater. Sci.: Mater. Med. 10 (1999) 485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    A. RAPOFF, O. FONTANEL and S. VENKATARAMAN. Heterogeneous orthotropic elasticity about a nutrient foramen via microindentation. in 51st Bioengineering Division Conference of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers., Key Biscayne, FL 2003.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    MITUTOYO, Instruction manual for micro hardness testing machine model: HM-112. Mitutoyo: Japan 1998.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    L. RIESTER, T. BELL and A. FISCHER-CRIPPS, J. Mater. Res. 16(6) (2001) 1660.ADSGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    MATWEB, The On-line Materials Information Source. Available from http://www.matweb.com Site last visited January 2003.

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of South Florida, College of Medicine, Department of NeurosurgeryTampa
  2. 2.Union College, Department of Mechanical EngineeringSchenectady

Personalised recommendations