Spatial orientation in bone samples and Young's modulus.

Bone mass is the most important determinant of the mechanical strength of bones, and spatial structure is the second. In general, the spatial structure and mechanical properties of bones such as the breaking strength are direction dependent. The mean intercept length (MIL) and line frequency deviation (LFD) are two methods for quantifying directional aspects of the spatial structure of bone. Young's modulus is commonly used to describe the stiffness of bone, which is also a direction-dependent mechanical property. The aim of this article is to investigate the relation between MIL and LFD on one hand and Young's modulus on the other. From 11 human mandibular condyles, 44 samples were taken and scanned with high-resolution computer tomography equipment (micro-CT). For each sample the MIL and LFD were determined in 72602 directions distributed evenly in 3D space. In the same directions Young's modulus was determined by means of the stiffness tensor that had been determined for each sample by finite element analysis. To investigate the relation between the MIL and LFD on one hand and Young's modulus on the other, multiple regression was used. On average the MIL accounted for 69% of the variance in Young's modulus in the 44 samples and the LFD accounted for 72%. The average percentage of variance accounted for increased to 80% when the MIL was combined with the LFD to predict Young's modulus. Obviously MIL and LFD to some extent are complementary with respect to predicting Young's modulus. It is known that directional plots of the MIL tend to be ellipses or ellipsoids. It is speculated that ellipsoids are not always sufficient to describe Young's modulus of a bone sample and that the LFD partly compensates for this.

[1]  Punam K Saha,et al.  Topology-based orientation analysis of trabecular bone networks. , 2003, Medical physics.

[2]  T M van Eijden,et al.  The Three-dimensional Cancellous Bone Architecture of the Human Mandibular Condyle , 2000, Journal of dental research.

[3]  Michael F. Ashby,et al.  The mechanical properties of cellular solids , 1983 .

[4]  G. Fraschini,et al.  Osteoporosis International , 2002, Osteoporosis International.

[5]  R. Huiskes,et al.  A new method to determine trabecular bone elastic properties and loading using micromechanical finite-element models. , 1995, Journal of biomechanics.

[6]  E. Gelsema,et al.  Unraveling the Role of Structure and Density in Determining Vertebral Bone Strength , 1997, Calcified Tissue International.

[7]  F. V. Van Ginkel,et al.  The radiographic trabecular pattern of hips in patients with hip fractures and in elderly control subjects. , 1998, Bone.

[8]  C. Turner,et al.  On Wolff's law of trabecular architecture. , 1992, Journal of biomechanics.

[9]  D. Chetverikov.  TEXTURAL ANISOTROPY FEATURES FOR TEXTURE ANALYSIS. , 1981 .

[10]  W. J. Whitehouse.  The quantitative morphology of anisotropic trabecular bone , 1974, Journal of microscopy.

[11]  W G Geraets,et al.  Orientation of the trabecular pattern of the distal radius around the menopause. , 1997, Journal of biomechanics.

[12]  J. Rho,et al.  Anisotropy of Young's modulus of human tibial cortical bone , 2000, Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing.

[13]  L J van Ruijven,et al.  A sensitive method for measuring spatial orientation in bone structures. , 2006, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[14]  A Odgaard,et al.  Three-dimensional methods for quantification of cancellous bone architecture. , 1997, Bone.

[15]  R. Mann,et al.  Characterization of microstructural anisotropy in orthotropic materials using a second rank tensor , 1984 .

[16]  R. Pidaparti,et al.  Cancellous bone architecture: advantages of nonorthogonal trabecular alignment under multidirectional joint loading. , 1997, Journal of biomechanics.

[17]  J. Wortman,et al.  Young's Modulus, Shear Modulus, and Poisson's Ratio in Silicon and Germanium , 1965 .

[18]  W G Geraets,et al.  Comparison of two methods for measuring orientation. , 1998, Bone.

[19]  R Huiskes,et al.  How morphology predicts mechanical properties of trabecular structures depends on intra-specimen trabecular thickness variations. , 2002, Journal of biomechanics.

[20]  D M Nunamaker,et al.  Trabecular bone remodeling around smooth and porous implants in an equine patellar model. , 1987, Journal of biomechanics.

[21]  G. Niebur,et al.  Biomechanics of trabecular bone. , 2001, Annual review of biomedical engineering.

[22]  F Eckstein,et al.  The osteoporotic vertebral structure is well adapted to the loads of daily life, but not to infrequent "error" loads. , 2004, Bone.

[23]  S. Cummings,et al.  Bone density at various sites for prediction of hip fractures , 1993, The Lancet.

[24]  D R Carter,et al.  Computational methods for analyzing the structure of cancellous bone in planar sections , 1991, Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society.

[25]  R. Drew,et al.  Wettability and spreading kinetics of molten aluminum on copper-coated ceramics , 2006 .

[26]  W. C. Hayes,et al.  Role of trabecular morphology in the etiology of age-related vertebral fractures , 2005, Calcified Tissue International.

[27]  T. van Eijden,et al.  Structural and Mechanical Properties of Mandibular Condylar Bone , 2006, Journal of dental research.

[28]  B. Allolio.  Risk Factors for Hip Fracture Not Related to Bone Mass and Their Therapeutic Implications , 1999, Osteoporosis International.

[29]  H. Genant,et al.  Accuracy of CT-based thickness measurement of thin structures: modeling of limited spatial resolution in all three dimensions. , 2002, Medical physics.