PSI - Issue 79

Mays H. Udah et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 79 (2026) 53–64

56

2.3. Dentin properties The properties of dentin vary among individuals due to factors such as age and dentin type. These variations must be accounted for in the FE model to ensure accurate analysis. The specific properties of dentin are presented in Table 1 [18, 22, 28-33]. For crack analysis, precise values of the modulus of elasticity are required, as LEFM has been chosen for this study. In addition, for components that involve interface elements, it is essential to determine not only the modulus of elasticity and Poisson's ratio but also other parameters, such as compressive yield strength and ultimate tensile strength. These coefficients are listed in Table 1.

Table 1. Dentin properties [17, 32, 33]

Properties

Value

Density [g/cm³]

2.2

Young modulus [GPa]

18.6 0.32

Poisson ratio

Bulk modulus [GPa] Shear modulus [GPa]

15

8.7

Tensile yield strength [MPa]

105.5

Compressive yield strength [MPa]

103-167.3

Tensile ultimate [MPa]

34.5-52

Compression ultimate [MPa] Thermal conductivity [w/m.k] Thermal expansion coefficient [/cº]

297 0.48

10.59×10 -6

Specific heat [J/Kg.K]

709-921

In our ongoing research into the decision-making processes behind various dental fillings (currently in the process of being published at a conference), the results of the ranking indicate that Filtek Z250 is the best performing filling, while IPS-Empress ranks as the least effective. Based on these findings, these two fillings were selected for use in the restoration process and were subsequently analyzed using ANSYS to compare their performance. Table 2 presents the properties of the filling materials used to restore the fractured tooth, which were input into the ANSYS program for further analysis [34].