Advertisement

The effects of force application on the compressive properties of femoral spongious bone

  • F. Metzner
    Correspondence
    Corresponding author at: ZESBO–Center for Research on Muscoskeletal Systems, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Traumatology and Plastic Surgery, University of Leipzig Medical Center, Semmelweisstr. 14, 01403 Leipzig, Germany.
    Affiliations
    ZESBO – Centre for Research on Musculoskeletal Systems, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany

    Department of Orthopedic, Trauma and Plastic Surgery, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany
    Search for articles by this author
  • B. Fischer
    Affiliations
    ZESBO – Centre for Research on Musculoskeletal Systems, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany

    Department of Orthopedic, Trauma and Plastic Surgery, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany
    Search for articles by this author
  • C.-E. Heyde
    Affiliations
    ZESBO – Centre for Research on Musculoskeletal Systems, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany

    Department of Orthopedic, Trauma and Plastic Surgery, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany
    Search for articles by this author
  • S. Schleifenbaum
    Affiliations
    ZESBO – Centre for Research on Musculoskeletal Systems, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany

    Department of Orthopedic, Trauma and Plastic Surgery, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany

    Fraunhofer Institute for Machine Tools and Forming Technology, Dresden, Germany
    Search for articles by this author

      Highlights

      • Compressive testing of human femoral condylar bone.
      • Verification of a simplified setup preventing end-artefacts during compression test.
      • Plateau stress is most sensitive to force initiation method.

      Abstract

      Background

      End artefacts play a major role in uniaxial compression tests with cancellous bone specimens. They lead to misinterpretation of mechanical parameters of bones due to uncontrolled introduction of bending moments into the free ends of trabeculae. This work aims to simplify current methods preventing end-artefacts and furthermore to investigate the influence of end artefacts on plateau stress.

      Methods

      176 cylindrical cancellous bone specimens were taken from human femoral condyles and tested in uniaxial compression. The specimens were divided into 2 groups (direct, end-cap) and compressive modulus, maximum stress, plateau stress, energy absorbtion as well as apparent density were evaluated. Density values are from separate specimens which are immediately adjacent to the mechanical specimen.

      Findings

      All mechanical parameters were significantly higher in the end-cap specimens than in the direct ones by about 30 – 40 %, thus reaching similar differences as the previous studies. Greatest differences between groups were determined for compressive modulus (45 %) and plateau stress (35 %). Energy absorbtion can be explained with great accuracy by plateau stress (P < 0.001; R2 = 0.95). Among all parameters plateau stress can be best explained by apparent density using an exponential function (P < 0.001; R2 = 0.38).

      Interpretation

      The end-cap method used here to prevent end artefacts showed variations consistent with the literature when compared to the direct method. Additionally it was shown that the way in which the force is applied to the specimen has a major influence on the failure progression behavior, which was characterized using the plateau stress.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Clinical Biomechanics
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Bevill G.
        • Easley S.K.
        • Keaveny T.M.
        Side-artifact errors in yield strength and elastic modulus for human trabecular bone and their dependence on bone volume fraction and anatomic site.
        in: Memory of Rik Huiskes. 40. 2007: 3381-3388
        • Burgers T.A.
        • Mason J.
        • Niebur G.
        • Ploeg H.L.
        Compressive properties of trabecular bone in the distal femur.
        in: Memory of Rik Huiskes. 41. 2008: 1077-1085
        • Carter
        • Hayes W.C.
        The compressive behavior of bone as a two-phase porous structure.
        JBJS. 1977; 59
        • Charlebois M.
        • Pretterklieber M.
        • Zysset P.K.
        The role of fabric in the large strain compressive behavior of human trabecular bone.
        J. Biomech. Eng. 2010; 132121006
        • Chevalier Y.
        • Pahr D.
        • Allmer H.
        • Charlebois M.
        • Zysset P.
        Validation of a voxel-based FE method for prediction of the uniaxial apparent modulus of human trabecular bone using macroscopic mechanical tests and nanoindentation.
        J. Biomech. 2007; 40: 3333-3340
        • Ciarelli T.E.
        • Fyhrie D.P.
        • Schaffler M.B.
        • Goldstein S.A.
        Variations in three-dimensional cancellous bone architecture of the proximal femur in female hip fractures and in controls.
        J. Bone Miner. Res. 2000; 15: 32-40
        • Dong X.N.
        • Yeni Y.N.
        • Les C.M.
        • Fyhrie D.P.
        Effects of end boundary conditions and specimen geometry on the viscoelastic properties of cancellous bone measured by dynamic mechanical analysis.
        J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A. 2004; 68: 573-583
        • Gao X.
        • Fraulob M.
        • Haïat G.
        Biomechanical behaviours of the bone–implant interface: a review.
        J. R. Soc. Interface. 2019; 16: 20190259
        • Gibson L.J.
        The mechanical behaviour of cancellous bone.
        J. Biomech. 1985; 18: 317-328
        • Goldstein S.A.
        The mechanical properties of trabecular bone: dependence on anatomic location and function.
        J. Biomech. 1987; 20: 1055-1061
        • Goldstein S.A.
        • Goulet R.
        • McCubbrey D.
        Measurement and significance of three-dimensional architecture to the mechanical integrity of trabecular bone.
        Calcif. Tissue Int. 1993; 53: S127-S133
        • Goulet R.W.
        • et al.
        The relationship between the structural and orthogonal compressive properties of trabecular bone.
        J. Biomech. 1994; 27: 375-389
        • Halgrin J.
        • Chaari F.
        • Markiewicz É.
        On the effect of marrow in the mechanical behavior and crush response of trabecular bone.
        J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 2012; 5: 231-237
        • Helgason B.
        • et al.
        Mathematical relationships between bone density and mechanical properties: a literature review.
        Clin. Biomech. 2008; 23: 135-146
        • Hodgskinson R.
        • Currey J.D.
        Effects of structural variation on Young’s modulus of non-human cancellous bone.
        Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. H J. Eng. Med. 1990; 204: 43-52
        • Hosseini H.S.
        • Pahr D.H.
        • Zysset P.K.
        Modeling and experimental validation of trabecular bone damage, softening and densification under large compressive strains.
        J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 2012; 15: 93-102
        • Keaveny T.M.
        • Borchers R.E.
        • Gibson L.J.
        • Hayes W.C.
        Trabecular bone modulus and strength can depend on specimen geometry.
        J. Biomech. 1993; 26: 991-1000
        • Keaveny T.M.
        • Pinilla T.P.
        • Crawford R.P.
        • Kopperdahl D.L.
        • Lou A.
        Systematic and random errors in compression testing of trabecular bone.
        J. Orthop. Res. 1997; 15: 101-110
        • Keaveny T.M.
        • Morgan E.F.
        • Niebur G.L.
        • Yeh O.C.
        Biomechanics of trabecular bone.
        Annu. Rev. Biomed. Eng. 2001; 3: 307-333
        • Keaveny T.M.
        • Morgan E.
        • Yeh O.
        Standart Handbook of Biomedical Engineering and Design.
        The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2004
        • Kelly N.
        • Harrison N.M.
        • McDonnell P.
        • McGarry J.P.
        An experimental and computational investigation of the post-yield behaviour of trabecular bone during vertebral device subsidence.
        Biomech. Model. Mechanobiol. 2013; 12: 685-703
        • van Ladesteijn R.
        • et al.
        Mechanical properties of cancellous bone from the acetabulum in relation to acetabular shell fixation and compared with the corresponding femoral head.
        Med. Eng. Phys. 2018; 53: 75-81
        • Matsuura M.
        • Eckstein F.
        • Lochmuller E.-M.
        • Zysset P.K.
        The role of fabric in the quasi-static compressive mechanical properties of human trabecular bone from various anatomical locations.
        Biomech. Model. Mechanobiol. 2008; 7: 27-42
        • Metzner F.
        • et al.
        Influence of osteoporosis on the compressive properties of femoral cancellous bone and its dependence on various density parameters.
        Sci. Rep. 2021; 11: 13284
        • Morgan E.F.
        • Keaveny T.M.
        Dependence of yield strain of human trabecular bone on anatomic site.
        J. Biomech. 2001; 34: 569-577
        • Morgan E.F.
        • Bayraktar H.H.
        • Keaveny T.M.
        Trabecular bone modulus–density relationships depend on anatomic site.
        J. Biomech. 2003; 36: 897-904
        • Murphy W.L.
        • Black J.
        • Hastings G.W.
        Handbook of Biomaterial Properties.
        Springer, 2016
        • Nasatzky E.
        • Gultchin J.
        • Schwartz Z.
        The role of surface roughness in promoting osteointegration.
        Refu’at ha-peh veha-shinayim (1993). 2003; 20: 98
        • Nazarian A.
        • Müller R.
        Time-lapsed microstructural imaging of bone failure behavior.
        J. Biomech. 2004; 37: 55-65
        • Nazarian A.
        • Muller J.
        • Zurakowski D.
        • Müller R.
        • Snyder B.D.
        Densitometric, morphometric and mechanical distributions in the human proximal femur.
        in: Memory of Rik Huiskes. 40. 2007: 2573-2579
        • Odgaard A.
        • Linde F.
        The underestimation of Young’s modulus in compressive testing of cancellous bone specimens.
        J. Biomech. 1991; 24: 691-698
        • Oftadeh Ramin
        Biomechanics and Mechanobiology of Trabecular Bone: A Review.
        2022
        • Ohman C.
        • et al.
        Mechanical testing of cancellous bone from the femoral head: experimental errors due to off-axis measurements.
        J. Biomech. 2007; 40: 2426-2433
        • Perilli E.
        • et al.
        Dependence of mechanical compressive strength on local variations in microarchitecture in cancellous bone of proximal human femur.
        J. Biomech. 2008; 41: 438-446
        • Schoenfeld C.M.
        • Lautenschlager E.P.
        • Meyer P.R.
        Mechanical properties of human cancellous bone in the femoral head.
        Med. Biol. Eng. 1974; 12: 313-317
        • Schwartz Z.
        • Nasazky E.
        • Boyan B.D.
        Surface microtopography regulates osteointegration: the role of implant surface microtopography in osteointegration.
        Alpha Omegan. 2005; 98: 9-19
        • Steffen T.
        • Tsantrizos A.
        • Aebi M.
        Effect of implant design and endplate preparation on the compressive strength of interbody fusion constructs.
        Spine. 2000; 25: 1077-1084
        • Sukhdeo S.
        • Parsons J.
        • Niu X.M.
        • Ryan T.M.
        Trabecular bone structure in the distal femur of humans, Apes, and Baboons.
        Anatom. Rec. (Hoboken, N.J.: 2007). 2020; 303: 129-149
        • Tassani S.
        • Ohman C.
        • Baleani M.
        • Baruffaldi F.
        • Viceconti M.
        Anisotropy and inhomogeneity of the trabecular structure can describe the mechanical strength of osteoarthritic cancellous bone.
        J. Biomech. 2010; 43: 1160-1166
        • Turner C.H.
        • Burr D.B.
        Basic biomechanical measurements of bone: a tutorial.
        Bone. 1993; 14: 595-608