Critical Reviews http://cro.sagepub.

com/
in Oral Biology & Medicine

Biomechanics of the Mandible

T.M. van Eijden
CROBM 2000 11: 123
DOI: 10.1177/10454411000110010101
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://cro.sagepub.com/content/11/1/123

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:
International and American Associations for Dental Research

Additional services and information for Critical Reviews in Oral Biology & Medicine can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://cro.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://cro.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

>> Version of Record - Jan 1, 2000

What is This?

Downloaded from cro.sagepub.com by guest on August 31, 2014 For personal use only. No other uses without permission.

BIOMECHANICS OF THE MANDIBLE

T.M.G.J. van Eriden
Department of Functional Anatomy, Academic (enter for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), Meibergdreef 15,1 DO5 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands
ABSTRACT: In this review the biomechanical behavior of the mandibular bone tissue, and of the mandibular bone as a whole,
in response to external loading is discussed. A survey is given of the determinants of mandibular stiffness and strength, including the mechanical properties and distribution of bone tissue and the size and shape of the mandible. Mandibular deformations, stresses, and strains that occur during static biting and chewing are reviewed. During biting and the powerstroke of mastication, a combination of sagittal bending, corpus rotation, and transverse bending occurs. The result is a complex pattern of
stresses and strains (compressive, tensile, shear, torsional) in the mandible. To be able to resist forces and bending and torsional moments, not only the material properties of the mandible but also its geometrical design is of importance. This is
reflected by variables like polar and maximum and minimum moments of inertia and the relative amount and distribution of
bone tissue. In the longitudinal direction, the mandible is stiffer than in transverse directions, and the vertical cross-sectional dimension of the mandible is larger than its transverse dimension. These features enhance the resistance of the mandible
to the relatively large vertical shear forces and bending moments that come into play in the sagittal plane.
Key words. Bone, stress and strain, strength, geometry, moments of inertia.

Introduction
During mastication and biting, the mandible is subjected to forces produced by the muscles of mastication and by reaction forces applied to the temporomandibular joints and the teeth. Throughout the years,
various aspects of these forces and their mutual relationships have been studied thoroughly (Barbenel, 1972;
Pruim et al., 1980; Weijs and Hillen, 1984; Osborn and
Baragar, 1985; Van Eijden et al., 1990, 1997; Koolstra and
Van Eijden, 1992, 1997). In the majority of studies, the
mandible has been treated as a rigid non-deformable
structure. However, as a result of external loading, stresses and strains are produced in the mandible. The range
and distribution of these stresses and strains depend on
the nature of the external loading and on the material
properties and geometry of the mandible, including the
amount and distribution of bone tissue. An understanding of the biomechanics of the mandible is important for
several reasons. It may give us an insight into the factors
that determine mandibular bone structure, since loading
conditions are thought to play an important role in the
modeling and remodeling of bone (Roux, 1895; Bouvier
and Hylander, 1981; Lanyon and Rubin, 1985; Carter,
1987; Frost, 1990a,b; Martin and Burr, 1989; Rubin et al.,
1990). In addition, clinical situations, e.g., tooth loss,
orthodontic treatment, dental implants, or reconstructive surgery, will alter the loading of the mandible. This
in turn might affect the architecture of the mandibular
bone.
In this paper, the fundamental concepts of mandibular biomechanics are reviewed. The review is divided into

five parts. The first parts introduce some basic definitions and the general physical properties of bone, to
facilitate comprehension of the later parts, in which
mandibular biomechanics is discussed. In part 1, the
material properties of bone tissue, including stress,
strain, and strength, are summarized. In part 2, the influences of size, shape, and the amount and distribution of
bone tissue on the rigidity of a whole bone are discussed. Part 3 reports a survey of the available information on the material properties of mandibular bone tissue. In part 4, the deformations, stresses, and strains
occurring in the mandible during biting and mastication
will be summarized. Finally, in part 5, the mechanical
implications of the size and shape of the mandible are
discussed.

(1) Material Properties of Bone Tissue

STRESS AND STRAIN
If a material, like bone, is loaded, it undergoes a deformation. The amount of deformation is quantified by the
amount of strain. Strain is defined as a change in length
per unit of length. Strain is dimensionless. For instance,
a strain of 0.01 (= 10,000 pRstrain) is equal to a deformation of 1%. Due to the deformation, tension occurs in the
bone tissue, which is quantified by the amount of stress.
Stress is defined as force per unit area. The unit of stress
is Pascal 11 Pa = 1 N (Newton)/m2, I MPa = 106 N/M2, 1
GPa = 109 N/m21. Depending on how the load is applied,
stress can be classified as compressive, tensile, or shear
(Fig. 1). Compressive stress is developed if the bone
becomes shorter, tensile stress if it becomes longer, and

Rev Oral
Crit Rev
Oral Biol Med
136120001Grit
111(1)123
(2000)
1(1):123-136
Biol Med

Downloaded from cro.sagepub.com by guest on August 31, 2014 For personal use only. No other uses without permission.

123

123

Shear

Tension

Compression

..

....

yield strength - ------

llll-...

Lo

Lo

Lo

ultimate

...

...

Stress

elastic

Lt
strain =

Lo- L
Lo

strain =

L-- Lo
Lo

shear strain =

AL

plastic region

Strain
and strain. The elastic and
stress
between
2.
Relationship
Figure
plastic deformation re ions of the curve are divided by the yield
point, beyond which deformation causes damage; the ultimate
strength is the stress bone tissue can maximally sustain.

Lo

Figure 1. Diagram showing the different types of strain for three

forms of stress (compression, tension, and shear).
shear stress if one region of the bone moves parallel relative to an adjacent region. In general, these types of
stress are linked to one another.
The relationship between stress and strain can be
described by a stress-strain curve (Fig. 2). The curve has
both elastic and plastic deformation regions. Within the
elastic region, the bone will return to its original shape if
the load is released. This is not the case within the plastic region, where the stress will cause permanent damage
to the bone. The slope of the elastic region is called the
Young's or elastic modulus (E). It is a measure of the
ability of bone tissue to resist deformation in the direction of the applied load. It is defined as E = U/E, where cr
is the stress and e is the strain. Like stress, the unit of the
elastic modulus is Pa. In general, the elastic modulus of
compact bone can vary between 10 and 20 GPa, depending on, for instance, the bone architecture (plexiform,
lamellar) and the type of loading (compressive, tensile).
In cancellous bone, the elastic modulus is generally
reported to be lower. Values (measured or estimated) of
the elastic modulus of trabecular bone were found to
range from 0.76 to 20 GPa, depending on trabecular density and orientation (Turner et al., 1990; Rho et al., 1993).
The shear modulus (G) is a measure of the ability of bone
to resist shear stress in a particular plane. It is defined as
G = T/,y, where T is the shear stress and y is the shear
strain. The shear modulus tends to be 1/3 to 1/2 of the
value of the elastic modulus.
When bone is compressed or tensed in one direction, not only will it deform in that direction (primary
strain), but it will also become thicker or thinner, respectively, in a direction perpendicular to it (secondary
strain). Poisson's ratio is a measure of the ability of a

structure to resist deformation in a direction perpendicular to that of the applied load. Poisson's ratio (v) is
defined as v = E/EX where Ey is the secondary strain and
Ex is the primary strain. For cortical bone, Poisson's ratios
of up to 0.45 have been reported (Ashman et al., 1984),
i.e., a strain of, for example, 1% in one direction will cause
a strain of 0.45% in the direction perpendicular to it.
The elastic constants of bone tissue (elastic modulus, shear modulus, and Poisson's ratio) describe the
relationship between a load placed on the bone tissue
and the resulting deformation within the elastic range. If
the elastic constants have the same values in different
directions, the bone is termed isotropic. However, the
elastic constants are generally not equal in all directions.
This directional dependency is called anisotropy. If the
bone properties differ in each of three perpendicular
directions, the bone is called orthotropic. If the
orthotropic bone has properties that are the same in two
of the three directions, it is called transversely isotropic.

STRENGTH
Another important mechanical feature of bone tissue is
its strength. The yield strength is defined as the stress at
the yield point, beyond which deformation causes tissue
damage. This is expressed by the point dividing the elastic strain region and the plastic strain region of the
stress-strain curve. Beyond the yield point, the bone tissue will not return to its original shape if the load is
released. The ultimate strength is the stress bone tissue
can maximally sustain; the breaking strength is the stress
at which the bone tissue will break. In bone, the ultimate
strength and breaking strength usually have the same
value. The value of the ultimate strength of bone
depends on the type of stress. Bone is weaker in shear
and in tension than in compression. For example, the
ultimate shear stress for femoral cortical bone in the lon-

12.rtRvOa ilMd1()1316(00
124
Crit Rev Oral Biol Med
11(l):123-136 (2000)
Downloaded from cro.sagepub.com by guest on August 31, 2014 For personal use only. No other uses without permission.

Compression

Torsion

Polar moment of inertia

Compressive stress:
L

Shear stress:
Tr
T= j

A
a = stress
L = load
A = area

X = shear stress
T = torque
r = radius
J = polar moment
of inertia

Figure 3. Compressive and torsional loading. Compression (or tension)

creates a uniformly divided stress, whereas torsion causes shear stress
that is zero at the center of mass and largest at the surface.
gitudinal direction is reported to be 67 MPa, whereas its
ultimate tensile stress is 135 MPa and its ultimate compressive stress is 205 MPa (Reilly and Burstein, 1975).
The ultimate stress of bone varies with direction and
location. The strength of cancellous bone is much less
than that of cortical bone. Ultimate stress values of cancellous bone vary between 1 and 20 MPa and are strongly dependent on trabecular orientation and apparent
density (i e., mass per unit volume) (Turner, 1989).

(2) Influence of Size and Shape and the

Amount and Distribution of Bone Tissue
on the Rigidity of Whole Bones

AND SHEAR

The ability of a bone to resist a particular load depends

on the type of loading. When a bone is loaded in compression, tension, or shear, the amount of stress (o) in a
particular bone cross-section is equal to the applied load
divided by the bone cross-sectional area, cf = L/A, where
L is the load and A the cross-sectional area (Fig. 3).
Hence, the larger the cross-sectional area, the smaller is
the amount of induced stress and the smaller the
amount of deformation (e ov/E, where E is the value of
the elastic modulus of the bone tissue; E has different
11(1
12
13
(200)

11(i)-123-136 (2000)

values for compression, tension, or shear). The compressive, tensile, or shear rigidity of the whole bone is equal
to E x A. Similarly, if the ultimate stress vu of the bone
tissue is known, the strength of the whole bone is given
by Lf = a X A, where Lf is the failure load.

TORSION

The stiffness and strength of a bone depend not only on

the material properties of the bone tissue but also on the
size and shape of the bone and the amount and distribution of bone tissue. The stiffness and strength of a
whole bone can be considered to be equal to the product of stiffness and strength of the bone tissue and the
shape and size of the bone. The rigidity of a whole bone
can be defined as its ability to resist deformation under
loading. A bone can be considered to be rigid if the ratio
between the applied load or torque and the resulting
deformation is large.

COMPRESSION, TENSION,

J = f Ad2
Figure 4. Definition of polar moment of inertia. The bone cortex
is divided into small elements of area A. Three elements are
shown, Al, A2, A3, with distance di to the center of mass for Al.

When a torsional load is applied to a bone with a circular cross-section, shear stress increases from zero at the
center of the cross-section to a maximum at the surface
(Fig. 3). The magnitude of the shear stress (T) in a circular cross-section is given by T = (T x r)/J, where T is the
applied torque, r the radius of the cross-section, and I
the polar moment of inertia of the cross-section. The failure torque of the bone in torsion is given by Tf = (I X TU)/r
where Tf is the failure torque and u is the ultimate stress.
The torsional rigidity of the whole bone is equal to G x 1,
where G is the shear modulus of the bone tissue. The
polar moment of inertia takes into account not only the
amount of cortical bone area, but also the disposition of
the cortical bone with respect to the center of mass (Fig.
4). The further the bone tissue is deposited from the center of mass, the larger the polar moment of inertia. The
larger the polar moment of inertia, the smaller is the
induced shear stress and the larger the ability of the
bone to resist torsional loading. Hence, the polar
moment of inertia can be considered as a measure of the
resistance of a bone cross-section to torsion. In the case
of non-circular cross-sections, as for instance in the
mandible, the polar moment of inertia can be calculated
with 1 = fA x d2, where A is an elemental area in the sec-

ritRevOralBio Me
Crit Rev Oral Biol Med

Downloaded from cro.sagepub.com by guest on August 31, 2014 For personal use only. No other uses without permission.

12

125

increased without an increase in cortical

bone. The cross-sectional moment of
inertia (I) about a particular axis can be
calculated from

Bending

2 + whdi2)
l(wh3/l
i=

where h and w are the height and width

of an elemental rectangular area A, and
d is the distance of the area to the neutral axis (Turner and Burr, 1993). The
rigidity of the bone against bending is
equal to E x I, where E is the elastic
-- ----modulus and I the cross-sectional
eutral axis
moment of inertia. It should be noted
that, in a cross-section with a large
cross-sectional moment of inertia,
= -d
stress can be kept relatively low. Hence,
an
increase in the cross-sectional
c= stress
moment
of inertia is more optimal to
M = bending moment (M = 2aF)
sustain
loads (in the case of a
heavy
d = distance from neutral axis
force
and/or
a large moment arm).
large
I = cross-sectional moment of inertia
If we consider a hollow bone with an
Figure 5. Bending causes compressive and tensile stresses. Stress is zero at the neutral elliptical cross-section, and we want to
axis and greatest at the surface.
know the ability of the bone to resist
bending, then the maximum (Ix) and
tion and d the distance of the area to the center of mass
minimum (Iy) moments of inertia are a measure of the
(Young, 1989). (It is actually the moment of inertia of a
resistance of the cross-section to bending about the
slice with unit mass per unit area.)
short and long axis of the ellipse, respectively (Fig. 6).
Obviously, the ability to resist bending about the short
BENDING
axis is larger than the ability to resist bending about the
If a straight bone is loaded in bending, the amount of
long axis. In general, increased values of Iy and Ix for a
stress in a particular cross-section can be calculated
given cross-section indicate enhanced resistance to
from c- = (M x d)/I, where M is the bending moment, d is
bending and torsion. The ratio between Iy and Ix can be
the distance from the center of mass, and I the cross-secused to assess the relative ability of a cross-section to
tional moment of inertia around the neutral axis (= axis
resist torsional stresses and to resist bending stresses in
of bending; see Fig. 5). The bending moment M is equal
particular directions (Deagling and Grine, 1991). A low
to the product of the applied force and the length of the
ratio indicates the bone's decreased ability to resist torperpendicular distance between the applied force and
sional stresses and to resist bending stresses about the
the cross-section. Bending results in compressive stresslong axis and an increased ability to resist bending about
es on one side of the bone and in tensile stresses on the
the short axis. Conversely, a more equal arrangement of
other side. The neutral axis is the axis that does not
bone tissue around the neutral axis results in a ratio
experience compression or tension during bending.
between Iy and Ix that approaches unity. The conseSince the magnitude of stress increases linearly with the
quence is an increased torsional rigidity and a more
distance from the neutral axis, the highest stresses are
equal rigidity to bending in various planes.
experienced on the outer surface of the bone. Thus, the
further the bone is from the neutral axis, the more rigid
(3) Material Properties
the section. As can be seen from the abovementioned
of Mandibular Bone Tissue
relationship, the amount of bending stress is inversely
ELASTIC CONSTANTS AND STRENGTH
proportional to the second moment of inertia of the section. The second moment of inertia is a measure of the
Data on the material properties of mandibular cortical
distribution of bone around a particular axis (Fig. 6). By
bone have been determined on small specimens
distributing bone as far as possible from the neutral axis
obtained from the mandibles of cadavers by means of
of the cross-section, the moment of inertia can be
ultrasonic wave techniques (Ashman et al., 1985; Ashman
126

Oral Biol Med

Grit Rev
Crit
Rev Oral
Biol Med
Downloaded from cro.sagepub.com by guest on August 31, 2014 For personal use only. No other uses without permission.

1l(1):123

(2000)

11(l):123-136 (2000)

y-axis

Cross-sectional
moment of inertia

- x-axis

Ix > 1y
I =

(wh3/12+whdi2)
32

i=1

Figure 6. Definition of cross-sectional moment of inertia. The

bone cortex is divided into small elements of area A with height
h and width w and with distance dx to the x-axis and distance
d to the y-axis. The cross-sectional moment of inertia (I ) about
th4e x-axis is larger than the cross-sectional moment of inertia (IY)
about the y-axis.
and Van Buskirk, 1987; Nail et al., 1989; Dechow et al.,
1992, 1993; Schwartz-Dabney and Dechow, 1997) and
material testing techniques (Arendts and Sigolotto,
1989, 1990). With respect to material properties of the
trabecular bone of the mandible, no data are available.
Properties of mandibular cortical bone were generally
determined in three orthogonal directions relative to the
surface of each sample: longitudinal, radial, and tangential (Fig. 7). A limitation of the loading experiments
(Arendts and Sigolotto, 1989, 1990) is that loading could
not be performed in the radial direction, because of the
small cortical thickness in this direction. Elastic constants and yield stresses for the radial direction were
estimated from those obtained from the tangential direction. Table I summarizes the values of elastic constants
reported by Arendts and Sigolotto (1989, 1990) and by
Dechow et al. (1993). The results of these studies indicate
that the cortical bone of the mandible is anisotropic. It is
stiffer in the longitudinal than in the radial and tangential directions. The average elastic moduli in the radial
and tangential directions are about 40-70% of those
along the longitudinal direction. Elastic moduli in the
radial and tangential directions have about the same
values (note that Etan tends to be larger than Erad).
Hence, the cortical bone of the mandible can be considered to be transversely isotropic, with a high elastic modulus in the longitudinal direction and a lower elastic
modulus in all transverse directions. The strength of the
mandible is also larger in longitudinal than in transverse

Figure 7. Definition of directions. L, longitudinal; T, tangential;

R, radial.
directions. Arendts and Sigolotto (1989) report mean
yield compressive stress values of 200 MPa, 110 MPa,
and 100 MPa in longitudinal, tangential, and radial direction, respectively; strain values at the yield points were
1.55%, 2.05%, and 2.25%, respectively. That the mandible
is stiffer and stronger in the longitudinal direction might
be due to the orientation of osteons, collagen fibers, and
apatite crystals, which are reported to be primarily oriented in this direction (Bacon et al., 1980). Data from
Bouvier and Hylander (1996) indicate that, in immature
macaques, secondary osteonal remodeling is related to
peak strain levels. The larger longitudinal stiffness and
strength indicate that the mandible is most resistant to
sagittal bending moments (see below). The shear moduli
in Table 1 indicate that the mandible is most resistant to
shear in a plane constructed of the longitudinal and tangential axes, whereas the least resistance to shear is
found in a plane constructed of the radial and tangential
axes.

REGIONAL VARIATION
Although elastic moduli and yield strengths measured by
Arendts and Sigolotto (1989, 1990) showed regional variation, i.e., up to a factor of 1.5 between minimum and
maximum values, their data do not point to systematic
differences between particular locations of the mandible
(e.g., corpus vs. ramus, lingual cortex vs. buccal cortex,
lower margin vs. upper margin). In contrast, Dechow et al.
(1992) found the stiffest region of the mandibular corpus
at the lower border inferior to the canine. According to
these authors, this region has the highest resistance to
torsion and is the region where torsional stresses are

3
e rlBo e
12
20)Gi
11(1)~~~~~
~
~
~
~
~
Meduse only. No other uses without permission.
Biolpersonal
Rev31,Oral
Downloaded from cro.sagepub.com by guest Crit
on August
2014 For

11(l):123-136 (2000)

127

been compared, by some authors, with a long bone bent

into the shape of a horseshoe (Ashman and Van Buskirk,
1987) or a parabola (Carter, 1989).

TABLE 1
Elastic Modulia 5E) and Shear Moduli (G)
in GPa, and Poisson's Ratios (v) for the
Human Mandible

(4) Mandibular Stresses and Strains

Arendts and Sigololtob Dechow et aI.b

Mean (range)
Mean (SD)
Erad
Etan

Elon

Grad tan
Grad-Ion
Gtan-lon
Vrad tan
Vrad-lon
Vtan-lon
Vtan-rad
Vlon-rad
Vlon tan

6.9 ( 6.0- 8.5)

8.2 ( 7.0- 9.5)
17.3 (16.0-18.0)

0.270
0.125
0.150
0.325
0.310
0.315

METHODS TO STUDY STRESSES AND STRAINS

11.3 (2.4)
13.8 (2.8)
19.4 (4.0)
4.5 (1.0)
5.2 (1.0)
6.2 (0.7)
0.274 (0.166)
0.237 (0.125)
0.317 (0.168)
0.273 (0.080)
0.405 (0.206)
0.376 (0.073)

Elastic moduli-subscript indicates direction: rad = radial, tan =

tangential, Ion = longitudinal. Shear moduli-double subscript indicates the plane of shear. Poisson's ratios: First subscript is direction
of primary strain; second subscript is direction of secondary strain.
b Dechow et al. (1993) used an ultrasonic wave technique and
analyzed specimens from 17 mandibles. Arendts and Sigolotto
(1989, 1990) used a material testing technique on specimens from
different regions of 3 mandibles.
a

suspected to change during function. In addition, data from

Schwartz-Dabney et al. (1991) and Schwartz-Dabney and
Dechow (I1997) indicate that (1) the cortical bone is stiffer at
the lower border of the corpus than at the alveolus, (2) the
longitudinal elastic modulus increases in going from the
molar region to the symphysis, and (3) the lingual cortex is
stiffer than the buccal cortex in the symphysis and premolar regions. The larger longitudinal elastic modulus at
the symphysis may compensate for suggested larger
torsional loadings at the symphysis compared with the
body of the mandible in the molar region. In accordance
with this are data on mineralization density and apparent
density indicating that regions of highest density are found
at the symphysis (Kingsmill and Boyde, 1998a,b).
Comparison of material properties of mandibular
bone tissue with those of the supraorbital region
(Dechow et al., 1993) indicate that bone from the
mandible along the longitudinal axis is stiffer than bone
from the supraorbital region. Comparison of material
properties of mandibular bone tissue with those of limb
bones shows roughly similar values (Reilly and Burstein,
1975; Arends and Sigolotto, 1989; Ashman and Van
Buskirk, 1987). Like the femoral midshaft, the mandible
is stiffer in the longitudinal direction than in the tangential and radial directions. Therefore, the mandible has
128

For assessment of the in vivo deformations of the

mandible and the strains and stresses occurring during
functioning, much information has come from studies in
which different techniques have been used. A great many
studies are available in which in vitro stress analyses have
been reported. Photoelastic material has been used to
make replicas of the mandible so that the internal stress
pattern could be studied (Ralph and Caputo, 1975;
Ralph, 1975; Standlee et al., 1977, 1981; Alexandridis et al.,
1991), or a layer of photoelastic material was coated on
the external surface of the mandible so that the patterns
of surface stress could be studied (Mongini et al., 1979;
Calderale et al., 1986). A major disadvantage of this
method is that the mechanical properties of plastic differ
considerably from those of bone. An alternative
approach is to glue strain gauges to the bone surface of
autopsy mandibles and to register direction and magnitude of principal strains under loading (Mongini et al.,
1981; Deagling et al., 1992; Throckmorton and Dechow,
1994). In these studies, necesssary assumptions have
been made about the points of application and the magnitudes and directions of the forces acting on the jaw. In
addition, these analyses have been limited to static situations, and information is obtained only about strains in
the superficial bone layer of the jaw. Obviously, because
of the uncertainties about the assumptions made and
simplifications, the results of these studies are difficult
to evaluate. Another approach is to use mathematical
models of the mandible. Models in which the mandible
has been treated as a straight or curved beam can provide an insight into the biomechanics of the mandible
(Hylander, 1984; Wolff, 1985; Weijs, 1989; Rudderman
and Mullen, 1992). Although their simplicity makes their
use very attractive, they are limited because they do not
take into account the irregular non-uniform mandibular
geometry. This can be achieved by use of the finite element method, in which the mandible is subdivided into
a large number of small elements of finite dimensions
(Gupta et al., 1973; Knoell, 1977; Ferre et at., 1985; Haskell
et al., 1986; Dos Santos et al., 1988; Umetani and Inoue,
1988; De Jongh et al., 1989; Hart et al., 1992; Korioth et al.,
1992; Rudderman and Mullen, 1992; Tanne et al., 1993;
McLoughlin and Bidez, 1993; Korioth and Hannam,
1994a,b; Tanaka et at., 1994). With a three-dimensional
finite element model, the ranges and distributions of
stress and strain in the mandible can be determined for
a given set of muscle, bite, and joint forces. In addition,

Oral Biol Med

Rev Oral
Crit
Crit Rev
Biol Med
Downloaded from cro.sagepub.com by guest on August 31, 2014 For personal use only. No other uses without permission.

(2000)

11(l):123-136 (2000)

the method enables one to analyze the

Fmb
effect on stress and strain patterns of,
for example, changes in loading,
mandibular geometry, bone distribuFjw
tion, tooth loss, orthodontic forces, and
Fib
implants (see, for review, Korioth and
Versluis, 1997). Thus far, the finite element method has been restricted to
static situations. Although the finite
element method is superior to the more
classically used methods, this method
also requires assumptions about the
applied forces and distribution of bone
properties. Several factors affect the Es
results of finite element model simulations of the mandible, including inner
"11"
structural inaccuracies and the incomI.e,,I,
-A
1'-.
plete and limited assignment of material properties to its various components. In the available models, the
paradental tissues and temporomandibular joints have been modeled
imprecisely, and the material properties
of the cancellous bone have been estiMb
mated from other bones. In addition,
the influence of regional stiffness variation has been neglected. Insight into
the potential capabilities of finite element models can be obtained by comparing their output with data from
experimental studies. However, validation attempts were performed in only a
few studies.
To assess the in vivo deformations of
the mandible and the stresses and
strains that occur during functioning,
such as chewing and biting, one can use
strain gauges to measure the strain on
t
C C
t
t
t
t
t
t
the surface of the mandible. The
method is restricted to a limited number of locations, due, for example, to
C
C C1
C . t
t
C
C
interference from muscles. For obvious
reasons, strain gauges cannot be
mandible durapplied, in vivo, in humans. Much infor- Figure 8. Sagitt al shear forces (Fs) and bending moments (Mb) along theshows
the resultThe
bottom
bite
force.
of
a
unilateral
panel
on
premolar
ing the
productic
mation has been generated by the work ing
region
of
tEension (t) and compression (c) in the upper and lower halves of the corof Hylander and co-workers (Hylander, pus The extern al forces are the bite force Fb, the muscle forces Fmb and Fmw, and the
1979a,b, 1981, 1984, 1985; Hylander and joint forces Fib cand Fj on the balancing and working sides. Only vertical force compoCrompton, 1986; Hylander et al., 1987), nents were consi;ideredv, and it was assumed that the muscles on the balancing and workcan be calculated from
who used strain gauges to determine ing.sides.were equally active.= If Fb is= set to 100 N,= the other forces
=
60
N.
90
125
N,
isitions:
N,
Fib
Fmb
FmW
Fiw
the magnitude and direction of in vivo their relative po
bone strains in the mandibles of priphology of the masticatory system in the human differs
mates (macaques and baboons) during various chewing
from that in macaques and baboons, the human
and biting tasks. From these strain patterns, it was posmandible may be loaded differently (Hylander and
sible to infer stress patterns. However, since the mor-

LQcczQoc.

71

.\..,,..

I--,"

1.

111

3(00

11(i):123-136 (2000)

rtRvCrlBo

Meduse only. No other uses without permission.

Biol
Rev31,Oral
Downloaded from cro.sagepub.com by guest Crit
on August
2014 For
personal

129

Sagittal bending

Fib

Transverse bending
Torsion
Figure 9. Loading of the mandible during a unilateral molar
bite. Fb is the bite force, Fmb and Fmw anM Fib and Fij are the
muscle and joint forces at the balancing and workinl sides. The
distortion of the corpus can be described as a coml ination of
sagittal bending, torsion, and lateral transverse bending.
Johnson, 1994). Differences that might have biomechanical implications concern the shape and functioning of
the symphyseal region and dental arches, the action of
the temporalis muscles, and the orientations of corpus
and ramus.

DEFORMATIONS DURING MASTICATION AND BITING

The following discussion summarizes the available information on mandibular deformations, strains, and stresses. The descriptions given are based on results obtained
from in vitro analyses, with, for instance, photoelastic
techniques, several beam models, three-dimensional
finite element analysis, and in vivo studies on animals.
During the powerstroke of mastication and during
static incisal or molar biting, the mandible is bent in the
sagittal plane. This bending is the result of the vertical
components of muscle forces and of the reaction forces
at the condyles and the chewing or bite forces (Fig. 8).
The magnitude of sagittal bending moments and shear
forces depends on the points of application, and consequently on moment arm lengths, of muscle and bite
forces. At the working side, shear forces attain the largest
values in the mandibular region between bite force and
muscle force, and at the balancing side, in the region
between muscle force and joint force. The consequence
of sagittal bending is that, at the balancing side, the
130

Grit
Crit Rev
Rev Oral
Oral

lower margin of the mandible is in compression and the

upper margin in tension; at the working side, a reverse
bending moment occurs. On both sides, the largest
moments occur in the ramus and adjoining areas of the
corpus. When the bite point is moved anteriorly, the
magnitude and, at some positions, the direction of the
bending moments change. It can be expected that during
symmetrical loading of the mandible, as for instance during incisal biting, the amount of sagittal bending in both
mandibular corpora is equal. During unilateral biting or
mastication, deformation of working and balancing sides
of the mandible will differ. For example, the results of the
finite element analysis of Korioth et al. (1992) indicate a
predominant sagittal bending of the balancing-side corpus as opposed to sagittal bending and torsion of the
working-side corpus during unilateral molar biting.
The distortion that occurs during the power stroke of
mastication has been described as a rotation (torsion) of
the mandibular corpus about its long axis (primate
Tupaia glis and Galago crassicaudatus: Hiiemae and Kay,
1973) or as a combination of mandibular corpus rotation
and lateral transverse bending (macaque: Hylander,
1979a,b, 1984; Hylander et al., 1987) (Fig. 9). The torsion
results in an eversion of the lower border of the mandible
and in an inversion of the alveolar border. This will result
in a narrowing of the dental arch. A similar torsion of the
mandibular corpus occurs in the human, since a narrowing of the dental arch has been demonstrated to occur
during static biting activities such as intercuspal clenching (Jung, 1959) and incisal biting (Burch, 1972). This narrowing can also be explained by an inward rotation of the
mandibular corpus about its longitudinal axis (Korioth
and Hannam, 1994a). It is the result of the torque produced by the resultant elevator muscle force acting laterally to this axis and the chewing or bite force acting
medially to the axis. At the working side of the mandible,
the shear stress caused by this torsion occurs mainly
between the bite point and the jaw muscle force, i.e.,
between corpus and ramus. Bilateral torsion of the corpora during incision results in bending in the symphyseal region (Hylander, 1984), which in turn leads to compression at the superior margin of the symphysis and
tension at its inferior margin.
The lateral transverse bending is brought about by
the laterally directed force component of the jaw elevator muscles (masseter and temporal) at the working and
balancing sides and the lateral component of the chewing force. The transverse bending occurs late in the
power stroke, and this may partly be the result of the late
and pronounced activity of the balancing-side deep masseter muscle during the terminal phase of the power
stroke (macaque-Hylander et al., 1987; Hylander and
Johnson, 1994; human-Van Eijden et al., 1993). The lateral bending moment increases from posterior to anteriBiol Med

Biol Med

Downloaded from cro.sagepub.com by guest on August 31, 2014 For personal use only. No other uses without permission.

11(l):123-136

(2000)

11(l):123-136 (2000)

or and reaches its highest magnitude

near the symphysis. Lateral bending produces compressive stress at the buccal
cortical surface of the mandible and tensile stress at the lingual surface. For
these stresses to be analyzed, the
mechanics of curved beams can be
applied, as illustrated by the analysis of
Hylander (1985). Consider a simplified
curved beam with center of mass CM of a
cross-section and center of curvature C
(Fig. 10). When a load is applied, the
amount of bending stress along the
inner (concave) and outer (convex) surfaces of the mandible differs. Stress at
the inner surface of the bone is larger
than at the outer surface. In contrast to
straight bones, the neutral axis does not
run through the center of mass, and the
bending stresses in a cross-section of a
curved bone are non-linearly distributed.
The difference in stress between outer
and inner surfaces is inversely propor-

compression

Stress at inner or outer surface:

NA CM
a = stress
K = factor with different values for inner and outer surface
M = bending moment
d = distance from centre of mass to surface
I= cross-sectional moment of inertia

ss in a curved beam as a result of a lateral transverse bending load. The

10. Strex
tional to the radius of curvature (R). A Figure
ex
surface
Inner
tension and the outer surface compression. Stress is zero at the
decrease in the radius of curvature leads neutral axis anc periences
reaches greatest values at the inner and outer surfaces. The amount of
to a decrease of stress at the outer sur- stress at the innier surface is larger than at the outer surface. C, center of curvature; R,
face and an increase of stress at the radius of curvatture; NA, neutral axis; CM, center of mass.
inner surface. The stronger the amount
of curvature, the larger are the stresses
upward and toward the working side. According to the
along the inner surface of the bone, and thus, the weakmodel, regions experiencing high magnitudes (15-25
er is the bone. The amount of stress along the inner or
MPa) of tensile stress included areas that run down and
outer surface can be approximated by oa = (K x M x d)/I,
forward, buccally and lingually, from the anterior aspects
where M, d, and I are the bending moment, the distance
of both coronoid processes and rami to meet at the linbetween the center of mass and the inner or outer surgual side of the symphysis; on the working side, only the
face, and the second moment of inertia, respectively. K is
lower buccal border and lingual half of the cortical bone
a factor that is applicable to curved beams. It has differwere under tension, whereas on the balancing side, the
ent values for the inner and outer surfaces. The value of
upper half of the alveolar cortical bone experienced tenK depends further on the radius of curvature (R) divided
sile stress. Compressive stresses were predicted to reach
inner
mass
to
the
center
of
the
from
by the distance (d)
largest values (15-25 MPa) around the bite point and in
K
for
values
1.8
and
1.2,
surface. For R/d values between
regions including both coronoid notches, the workingand
solid
elliptithe inner and outer surfaces of hollow
side
mandibular angle, and an area stretching from the
cal sections have been given by Roark and Young (1975).
aspect of the balancing-side ramus along the
posterior
inner
surK
for
the
For hollow elliptical sections, values
of the corpus to the lower symphysis and up
border
lower
face are reported to be 2.3 to 5.2 times larger than those
buccal
on
the
aspect of the alveolar bone to the bite
for the outer surface. For solid elliptical sections, the difshear stress was found to be larger on
In
general,
point.
ference amounts to a factor from 2.6 to 6.4.
the working-side than on the balancing-side corpus.
STRESS AND STRAIN DATA
However, a peak value of shear stress (25 MPa) was found
in the balancing-side condyle.
Data on deformations, stresses, and strains in the
In accordance with the curved beam model, the
human mandible are scarce. The finite element model
of Korioth et al. (1992) predicted that the symphymodel
used by Korioth et al. (1992) calculated a maximal deforseal
experienced higher magnitudes of tensile
region
mation of the mandible of approximately 0.6 mm in a
the
on
strain
lingual cortical surface (1450-1600 [LE) than
526
simulated unilateral molar bite with a magnitude of
labial
on
the
surface, and that strains at the second
N. During this bite, the mandible deformed helically
123-136 (2000)
(2000)
11(l)
11l:23-136

Oral Biol
Rev Oral
Crit Rev
Biol Med
Crit
Med

Downloaded from cro.sagepub.com by guest on August 31, 2014 For personal use only. No other uses without permission.

131

131

RESISTANCE TO
COMPRESSION, TENSION,
SHEAR, AND TORSION
Cortical Bone Index (CI) Bone Cross-sectional Area (CSA), Polar Moment of Inertia (J),
and Second Moments of Inertia (lx and of Mandibular Corpus Cross-sections at MI The relative amount of comI
CSAa
J
CI
pact bone within a cross-seclx
mean SD
mean SD
mean SD
mean SD
mean SD
tion can be expressed by the
so-called cortical index, which
17.8 3.1
7.7
57.7
75.7 9.2
101.3 9.5
F 0.394 0.05
is the cortical bone area divid27.1 5.7
23.5
84.1
111.2 22.4
126.6 8.9
M 0.408 0.04
ed by the total subperiosteal
area (Schwartz and Conroy,
a CSA in mm2, J and in mm4 x 10-2.
1996). The cortical index
Data are from Deagling (1989) and were obtained from 5 female (F) and 5 male (M) mandibles; the
to about 0.4 for the
amounts
1*L1_ is trearea as a Lnollow
11-_ L-Done.
manaible
human mandible (Deagling,
1989). The bone cross-sectional area is a measure of the abilmolar region were smaller than those at the symphysis.
ity of a cross-section to counter shear stress, parallel to
Throckmorton et al. (1992) loaded human mandibles with
this section, and axial stresses (compression, tension),
artificial muscle forces of 600 N and measured bone
while the polar moment of inertia provides a measure of
strains along the corpus of up to 800 Re. In vivo strain
the ability of a cross-section to resist torsion. Table 2
have
in
fascicularis)
(Macaca
monkeys
studies
gauge
gives values of cortical indices, cross-sectional areas,
shear
and
maximum
compressive,
tensile,
demonstrated
and polar and second moments of inertia of mandibular
2564
to
and
respec>e,
strain values of up 1122, 1442,
corpus cross-sections at the first molar region (Deagling,
et
a
transducer
al.,
on
(Dechow
tively, during molar biting
1989). In human mandibles, the cortical index and polar
an
apple,
e.g.,
1993). The levels of strain during chewing,
moments vary slightly in going from the posterior to the
values
are considerably smaller (less than 400 >e) than
anterior region along the corpus. This implies that the
reported for static bites (e.g., Hylander et al., 1987), and
resistance to axial loads and to shear and torsion hardly
bone strain values are generally larger on the working
differs in the antero-posterior direction.
side than on the balancing side (Hylander, 1981). Bone
Hylander (1979b) and Smith (1983) suggested that
strain magnitudes in the range of 2000 to 3000 RE are
the corpus might behave as an open and/or a hollow
considered to be near the upper limit of strain that
beam during mastication. Open parts of the beam are
occurs during normal routine behaviors, such as locofound at the alveoli, the closed parts between the alveoli.
motion (Lanyon and Rubin, 1985).
The difference between an open and closed section is
particularly important with respect to the ability of the
mandible to resist torsion, since open sections have
(5) Mechanical Implications of Shape and
diminished
capacity to counter torsion due to a reversal
Cross-sectional Geometry of the Mandible
in the direction of shear stresses from external to interAs explained above, to be able to resist forces, bending,
nal contours (Deagling et al., 1992). The presence of teeth
and torsional moments applied to the mandible, not only
within the alveolar bone has a role in the maintenance of
are the material properties but also the geometrical
torsional rigidity of the mandibular corpus, and the
design of the bone tissue important. The cross-sectional
periodontal ligament also appears to influence these
geometry of the mandible has an important bearing on
stress-bearing capabilities (Deagling et al., 1992). Since
the understanding of its biomechanics. As explained
cancellous bone of variable density is found within the
above, the ability of the mandible to resist stresses and
corpus, neither solid nor hollow beam models are totalstrains greatly depends on the distribution of cortical
ly reliable for predicting the mechanical design and
bone throughout the mandibular cross-section (Smith,
behavior of the mandible (Deagling, 1989). In addition,
1983; Hylander, 1988). Knowledge about the amount and
the presence of teeth and periodontal ligament affects
distribution of bone tissue can provide insights into the
the behavior of the corpus in the open-section model.
rigidity of a cross-section subjected to a variety of loads. It
should be emphasized, however, that variation in
RESISTANCE TO BENDING
mandibular geometry does not necessarily reflect differCross-sections of the mandibular corpus are more or less
ences in loading patterns (Deagling, 1993). For instance,
oval, and their vertical dimensions are larger than their
the amount of bone tissue at a particular location of the
transverse dimensions. The moments of inertia are a
mandible cannot be simply considered to be proportional
measure of the resistance of the cross-section to bendto the magnitude of mechanical loading at that location.

TABLE 2

lQ)

:_

132

-,

Med
BioI Med
Oral Biol
Rev Oral
Crit Rev
Crit
Downloaded from cro.sagepub.com by guest on August 31, 2014 For personal use only. No other uses without permission.

1(1):123-136

11(l):123-136 (2000)

ing in both the sagittal (Ix) and transverse planes (IY).

Resistance to bending in the sagittal plane is directly
proportional to Ix. Increases in Ix can be brought about
through the deposition of cortical bone on the superior
and inferior borders of the mandible, thereby resulting in
a vertically deep mandible. The values of Ix and Iy given
in Table 2 indicate that the resistance to bending in the
sagittal plane is approximately three times larger than
the resistance to bending in the transverse plane. Hence,
this cross-sectional shape is an efficient design to resist
sagittal bending during biting and mastication. In addition, the lower margin of the symphysis and corpus is
thicker than the upper margin. As a result, tensile stress
at the lower margin is more reduced than compressive
stress at the upper margin. This is advantageous, since
the resistance of bone to tension is smaller than that to
compression. The largest bending moments occur in the
ramus and in the adjoining area of the corpus. A large
vertical dimension of the ramus can be considered as an
efficient design to counter these moments.
The transverse dimension of the corpus cross-section is smaller than its vertical dimension. Lateral bending of the corpus in the transverse plane is best counteracted by increasing IY. This could be achieved by the
deposition of cortical bone along the medial and lateral
borders of the corpus, resulting in a transverse thickening of the mandible. The ability of the corpus to resist
torsional loads is directly proportional to the ratio
between Iy and l. The areas experiencing the maximum
shear stress are the medial and lateral aspects of the corpus, so that increases in the magnitude of ly relative to Ix
(i.e, a transverse thickening of the mandible) will maximallly counteract torsional loads (Hylander, 1979a,b).
The most efficient design to resist torsion about the long
axis is a circular cross-section. Compared with an elliptical cross-section, a more circular cross-section of the
mandible makes it more suitable to resist transverse
bending loads and torsional loads. A larger cross-section
is preferable to a smaller one, since it yields a larger
absolute rigidity and strength. Nevertheless, an elliptical
cross-sectional geometry is a more favorable design for
the mandible, since the sagittal bending loads are larger
than the transverse bending loads and the torsional
loads.

Conclusions
As a result of the forces and moments acting on the
mandible, stresses and strains are produced. The available information about these stresses and strains is
scarce. First, there is a lack of knowledge about the
nature of the forces and moments that act on the
mandible during functioning. The points of application
and the magnitudes and directions of muscle, joint, and
tooth forces change continuously. Thus far, there are no
11(11 123 136(2000)
(2000)
11(i):123-136

data on these forces, particularly during dynamic situations, such as mastication. Second, information on
mandibular stresses and strains can be obtained only
indirectly, since experiments cannot be carried out in vivo
in the human. Therefore, such information must be
inferred from in vitro studies, animal studies, and
mechanical models. In vitro studies are of restricted
value, because of the necessary assumptions about the
forces acting on the jaw. When the results from animal
studies are extrapolated to humans, relevant differences
in form and function between animals and man should
be considered. Appropriate mechanical models of the
mandible are limited to static situations and based on a
large number of simplifications and assumptions, with
respect to, for instance, the material properties of the
mandible.
From the shape of the mandible, it can be concluded that the distribution of cortical bone along the corpus, combined with a vertically deep mandible, is an efficient design to withstand relatively large vertical shear
forces and bending loads in the sagittal plane. Stresses
and strains are assumed to be important factors in the
regulation of the modeling and remodeling processes in
bone. Hence, the amount and disposition of cortical
bone, and the architecture and density of cancellous
bone, are assumed to be (partly) regulated by loading
conditions. Thus far, however, it is not known to what
extent and by what mechanisms loading conditions
affect modeling and remodeling of the mandible. In the
last decade, several adaptive remodeling theories have
been introduced. In combination with the finite element
method, these theories might offer the possibility to predict mandibular bone morphology. These analyses might
also be applied to study the influence of growth and
development and of clinical interventions on mandibular
bone morphology.

Acknowledgments
This research was institutionally supported by the Interuniversity
Research School of Dentistry, through the Academic Center for Dentistry
Amsterdam. I am grateful to my colleagues Ian Harm Koolstra for his
critical suggestions and Peter Brugman for the illustrations.

REFERENCES
Alexandridis C, Caputo AA, Eliades GC (I1991). Functional
stress modification after high condylectomy surgery. I
Oral Rehabil 18:317-326.
Arendts FJ, Sigolotto C (1989). Standardabmessungen,
Elastizitatskennwerte und Festigkeitsverhalten des
Human-Unterkiefers, ein Beitrag zur Darstellung der
Biomechanik der Unterkiefer-Teil 1. Biomed Technik
34:248-255.
Arendts FJ, Sigolotto C (1990). Mechanische Kennwerte

Med
Biol Med
Oral Biol
Rev Oral
Grit Rev
Crit
Downloaded from cro.sagepub.com by guest on August 31, 2014 For personal use only. No other uses without permission.

133
133

des Human-Unterkiefers und Untersuchung zum "in

vivo"-Verhalten des kompakten Knochengewebes, ein
Beitrag zur Darstellung der Biomechanik des
Unterkiefers-Teil 11. Biomed Technik 35:123-130.
Ashman RB, Van Buskirk WC (1987). The elastic properties of a human mandible. Adv Dent Res 1:64-67.
Ashman RB, Cowin SC, Van Buskirk WC, Rice JC (1984). A
continuous wave technique for the measurement of
the elastic properties of cortical bone. I Biomechan
17:349-361.
Ashman RB, Rosinia G, Cowin SC, Fontenot MG, Rice JC
(1985). The bone tissue of the canine mandible is
elastically isotropic. J Biomechan 18:717-712.
Bacon GE, Bacon PJ, Griffiths RK (1980). Orientation of
apatite crystals in relation to muscle attachment in
the mandible. J Biomechan 13:725-729.
Barbenel IC (1972). The mechanics of the temporomandibular joint: a theoretical study. J Biomechan
5:251-256.
Bouvier M, Hylander WL (1981). Effect of bone strain on
cortical bone structure in macaques (Macaca mulatta).
I Morphol 167:1-12.
Bouvier M, Hylander WL (1996). The mechanical or metabolic function of secondary osteonal bone in the
monkey Macaca fascicularis. Arch Oral Biol 10:941-950.
Burch IG (1972). Patterns of change in human mandibular arch width during jaw excursions. Arch oral Biol
17:623-631.
Calderale PM, Rossetto M, Pezzoli M (1986).
Biomechanical analysis of coupling between
mandible and removable partial dentures. In:
Biomechanics: basic and applied research. Bergmann
G, Kblbert R, Rohlmann A, editors. Dordrecht:
Martinus Nijhoff, pp. 745-750.
Carter DR (1987). Mechanical loading history and skeletal biology. ] Biomechan 20:1095-1109.
Carter R (1989). The elastic properties of the human
mandible (dissertation). New Orleans: Tulane
University.
De longh HJ, Dantuma R, Sluijsmans HMJ (1989). The
shape of the mandible in the domestic sheep: a biomechanical analysis using E.M.G. as an estimator of
muscle force. Acta Morphol Neerl-Scand 27:63-73.
Deagling DI (1989). Biomechanics of cross-sectional size
and shape in the homonoid mandibular corpus. Am I
Phys Anthropol 80:91-106.
Deagling DJ (1993). The relationship of in vivo bone strain
to mandibular corpus morphology in Macaca fascicularis. J Hum Evol 25:247-269.
Deagling DJ, Grine FE (1991). Compact bone distribution
and biomechanics of early hominid mandibles. Am J
Phys Anthropol 86:321-339.
Deagling DJ, Ravosa MJ, Johnson KR, HylanderWL (1992).
Influence of teeth, alveoli, and periodontal ligaments

134

on torsional rigidity in human mandibles. Am I Phys

Anthropol 89:59-72.
Dechow PC, Schwartz-Dabney CL, Asman RB (1992).
Elastic properties of the human mandibular corpus.
In: Bone biodynamics in orthodontic and orthopedic
treatment. Vol. 27. Craniofacial growth series.
Goldstein SA, Carlson DS, editors. Ann Arbor, MI:
University of Michigan, pp. 299-314.
Dechow PC, Nail GA, Schwartz-Dabney CL, Asman RB
(1993). Elastic properties of human supraorbital and
mandibular bone. Am J Phys Anthropol 90:291-306.
Dos Santos J, Suzuki H, Ash MM (1988). Mechanical
analysis of the equilibrium of occlusal splints. I
Prosthet Dent 59:346-352.
Ferre IC, Legoux R, Helary JL, Albugues F, Le Floch C,
Bouteyre J, et al. (1985). Study of the deformations of
the isolated mandible under static constraints by
simulation of a physicomathematical model. Anat Clin

7:183-192.
Frost HM (1990a). Skeletal structural adaptations to
mechanical usage (SATMU): 1. Redefining Wolff's law:
the bone modeling problem. Anat Rec 226:403-413.
Frost HM (1990b). Skeletal structural adaptations to
mechanical usage (SATMU): 2. Redefining Wolff's law:
the remodeling problem. Anat Rec 226:414-422.
Gupta KK, Knoell AC, Grenoble DE (1973). Mathematical
modeling and structural analysis of the mandible.
Biomat Med Dev Artif Org 1:469-479.
Hart RT, Hennebel W, Thongpreda N, Van Buskirk WC,
Anderson RC (1992). Modeling the biomechanics of
the mandible: a three-dimensional finite element
study. J Biomechan 25:261-286.
Haskell B, Day M, Tetz 1 (1986). Computer-aided modeling in the assessment of the biomechanical determinants of diverse skeletal patterns. Am I Orthod 89:363382.
Hiiemae KM, Kay RF (1973). Evolutionary trends in the
dynamics of primate mastication. In: Symposium of
the fourth international congress on primatology.
Zingeser MR, editor. Basel: Karger, pp. 28-64.
Hylander WL (1979a). Mandibular function in Galago crassicaudatus and Macaca fascicularis: an in vivo approach to
stress analysis of the mandible. J Morphol 159:253-296.
Hylander WL (1979b). The functional significance of primate mandibular form. J Morphol 160:223-240.
Hylander WL (1981). Patterns of stress and strain in the
macaque mandible. In: Craniofacial biology.
Craniofacial growth series. Carlson DS, editor. Ann
Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, pp. 1-35.
Hylander WL (1984). Stress and strain in the mandibular
symphysis of primates: a test of competing hypotheses. Am J Phys Anthropol 64:1-46.
Hylander WL (1985). Mandibular function and biomechanical stress and scaling. Am Zool 25:223-240.

Rev Oral
Grit
Crit Rev
Biol Med
Oral Biol
Med
Downloaded from cro.sagepub.com by guest on August 31, 2014 For personal use only. No other uses without permission.

1(1)123-136

11(l):123-136 (2000)

Hylander WL (1988). Implications of in vivo experiments

for interpreting the functional significance of "robust"
australopithecine jaws. In: Evolutionary history of
robust Australopithecines. Grine FE, editor. New York:
Aldine de Ruyter, pp. 55-83.
Hylander WL, Crompton AW (1986). Jaw movement and
patterns of bone strain in the monkey Macaca fascicularis. Arch Oral Biol 31:841-848.
Hylander WL, Johnson KR (1994). law muscle function
and wishboning of the mandible during mastication
in macaques and baboons. Am I Phys Anthropol 94:523547.

Hylander WL, Johnson KR, Crompton AW (I1987). Loading

patterns and jaw movements during mastication in
Macaca fascicularis: a bone-strain, electromyographic,
and cineradiographic analysis. Am J Phys Anthropol
72:287-314.
lung F (1959). Veranderungen des prothesenlagers unter
der Teilprothese. Dtsch Zahndrztl Z 14:105-107.
Kingsmill VI, Boyde A (1998a). Variation in the apparent
density of human mandibular bone with age and dental status. I Anat 192:233-244.
Kingsmill VI, Boyde A (1998b). Mineralisation density of
human mandibular bone: quantitative backscattered
electron image analysis. J Anat 192:245-256.
Knoell AC (1977). A mathematical model of an in vitro
human mandible. I Biomechan 10:159-166.
Koolstra IH, Van Eijden TMGI (1992). Application and
validation of a three-dimensional mathematical
model of the human masticatory system in vivo. I
Biomechan 25:175-187.
Koolstra IH, Van Eijden TMGJ (1997). The jaw open-close
movements predicted by biomechanical modelling. l
Biomechan 30:943-950.
Korioth TWP, Hannam AG (1994a). Deformation of the
human mandible during simulated tooth clenching. J
Dent Res 73:56-66.

Korioth TWP, Hannam AG (1994b). Mandibular forces

during simulated tooth clenching. I Orofac Pain 8:178189.
Korioth TWP, Versluis A (1997). Modeling the mechanical
behavior of the jaws and their related structures by
finite element (FE) analysis. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med 8:90104

Korioth TWP, Romilly DP, Hannam AG (1992). Threedimensional finite element stress analysis of the dentate human mandible. Am J Phys Anthropol 88:69-96.
Lanyon LE, Rubin CT (1985). Functional adaptation in
skeletal structures. In. Functional vertebrate morphology. Hildebrand M, Bramble DM, Liem KF, Wake
DB, editors. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, pp.
1 -25.
Martin RB, Burr DB (1989). Structure, function and adaptation of compact bone. New York: Raven Press.
(20001
11(1) 123 136 (2000)
11(i)-.123-136

McLoughlin SW, Bidez MW (1993). A three dimensional

finite element model of a fully dentate human
mandible. ASME Bioeng Conf BED 24:104-106.
Mongini F, Calderale PM, Barberi G (1979). Relationship
between structure and the stress pattern in the
human mandible. J Dent Res 58:2334-2337.
Mongini F, Preti G, Calderale PM, Barberi G (1981).
Experimental strain analysis on the mandibular
condyle under various conditions. Med Biol Eng Comput
19:521-523.
Nail GA, Dechow PC, Ashman RB (1989). Elastic properties of mandibular bone in rhesus monkeys
(abstract). I Dent Res 68(Spec Iss):294.
Osborn IW, Baragar FA (1985). Predicted pattern of
human muscle activity during clenching derived from
a computer assisted model: symmetric vertical bite
forces. J Biomechan 18:599-612.
Pruim GI, De longh HI, Ten Bosch 1J (1980). Forces acting
on the mandible during bilateral static bite at different bite force levels. I Biomechan 13:755-763.
Ralph JP (1975). Photoelastic studies in the edentulous
human mandible. J Dent 3:9-14.
Ralph JP, Caputo AA (1975). Analysis of stress patterns in
the human mandible. J Dent Res 54:814-82 1.
Reilly SB, Burstein AH (1975). The elastic and ultimate
properties of compact bone tissue. J Biomechan 8:393405.

Rho J-Y, Ashman RB, Turner CH (1993). Young's modulus

of trabecular and cortical bone material: ultrasonic
and microtensile measurements. Biomechan 26:1 1 1119.

Roark RI, Young WC (1975). Formulas of stress and strain.

5th ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Roux W (1895). Gesammelte Abhandlungen uiber die
Entwicklungsmechanik der Organismen. Leipzig: W.
Engelman.
Rubin CT, McLeod KI, Bain SD (1990). Functional strains
and cortical bone adaptation: epigenetic assurance of
skeletal integrity. J Biomechan 23:43-54.
Rudderman RH, Mullen RL (1992). Biomechanics of the
facial skeleton. Adv Craniomaxillofac Fract Management
Clin Plast Surg 19:11-29.
Schwartz GT, Conroy GC (1996). Cross-sectional geometric properties of the Otavipithecus mandible. Am Phys
Anthropol 99:613-623.
Schwartz-Dabney CL, Dechow PC (1997). Variations in
cortical material properties from throughout the
human mandible (abstract). I Dent Res 76(Spec
Iss):249.
Schwartz-Dabney CL, Dechow PC, Ashman RB (1991).
Elastic properties of human mandibular symphysis
(abstract). I Dent Res 70(Spec Iss):518.
Smith RJ (1983). The mandibular corpus of female primates: taxonomic, dietary and allometric correlates

Med
Bial Med
Oral Biol
Rev Oral
Crit Rev
Crit

Downloaded from cro.sagepub.com by guest on August 31, 2014 For personal use only. No other uses without permission.

135

135

of interspecific variations in size and shape. Am J Phys

Anthropol 61:315-330.
Standlee JP, Caputo AA, Ralph JP (1977). Stress trajectories within the mandible under occlusal loads. I Dent
Res 56:1297-1302.
Standlee JP, Caputo AA, Ralph JP (1981). The condyle as
a stress-distributing component of the temporomandibular joint. I Oral Rehabil 8:391-400.
Tanne K, Lu YC-L, Tanaka E, Sakuda M (1993).
Biomechanical changes of the mandible from
orthopaedic chin cup force studied in a three-dimensional finite element model. Eur I Orthodont 15:527-533.
Tanaka E, Tanne K, Sakuda M (1994). A three-dimensional finite element model of the mandible including the
TMJ and its application to stress analysis in the TMJ
during clenching. Med Eng Phys 16:316-322.
Throckmorton GS, Dechow PC (1994). In vitro strain measurements in the condylar process of the human
mandible. Arch Oral Biol 39:853-867.
Throckmorton GS, Ellis E, Winkler AJ, Dechow PC (1992).
Bone strain following application of a rigid bone
plate. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 50:1066-1073.
Turner CH (1989). Yield behavior of cancellous bone. J
Biomechan Eng 111:1-5.
Turner CH, Burr DB (1993). Basic biomechanical measurements of bone: a tutorial. Bone 14:595-608.
Turner CH, Cowin SC, Rho J-Y, Ashman RB, Rice JC (1990).

136

The fabric dependence of the orthotropic elastic constants of cancellous bone. J Biomechan 23:549-561.
Umetani Y, Inoue M (1988). Movement and function of
mandible-A simplified mechanomorphological
model of mandible. Anat Anz 165:193-196.
Van Eijden TMGJ, Brugman P, Weijs WA, Oosting J (1990).
Coactivation of jaw muscles: recruitment order and
level as a function of bite force direction and magnitude. J Biomechan 23:475-485.
Van Eijden TMGJ, Blanksma NG, Brugman P (1993).
Amplitude and timing of EMG activity in the human
masseter muscle during selected motor tasks. J Dent
Res 72:599-606.
Van Eijden TMGJ, Korfage JAM, Brugman P (1997).
Architecture of the human jaw-closing and jaw-opening muscles. Anat Rec 248:464-474.
Weijs WA (1989). The functional significance of morphological variation of the human mandible and masticatory muscles. Acta Morphol Neerl-Scand 27:149-162.
Weijs WA, Hillen B (1984). Relationship between the
physiological cross-sections of the human jaw muscles and their cross-sectional area in computer tomograms. Acta Anat 118:129-138.
Wolff JEA (1985). Mechanik des Unterkiefers mit
beweglicher Symphyse. Z Morph Anthrop 76:25-35.
Young WC (1989). Roarks formulas for stress & strain.
6th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Biol Med
Rev Oral
Grit Rev
Crit
Oral Biol
Med
Downloaded from cro.sagepub.com by guest on August 31, 2014 For personal use only. No other uses without permission.

l1(1):123

136

11(l):123-136 (2000)