Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A biomechanical comparison between human calvarial bone and a skull simulant considering the role of attached periosteum and dura mater

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Legal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Current forensic analysis of blunt force trauma relies on the use of cadaveric or animal tissues, posing ethical and reproducibility concerns. Artificial substitutes may help overcome such issues. However, existing substitutes exhibit poor anatomic and mechanical biofidelity, especially in the choice of skull simulant material. Progress has been made in identifying materials that have similar mechanical properties to the human skull bone, with the potential to behave similarly in mechanical loading.

Aims

To compare the biomechanical properties of the human calvarial bone with an epoxy resin–based simulant material. Data collected was also used to analyse the effect of periosteal attachment on the mechanical properties of skull bone compared with that of the counterpart samples.

Methods

Fifty-six human skull bone specimens were prepared from two cadaveric heads. Half of these specimens were removed of periosteum and dura mater as the PR (periosteum removed) group, whereas periosteum was left attached in the PA (periosteum attached) group. Duplicates of the bone specimens were fabricated out of an epoxy resin and paired in corresponding PR and PA groups. The specimens were loaded under three-point bending tests until fracture with image-based deformation detection.

Results

Comparison of the epoxy resin and skull specimens yielded similarity for both the PR and PA groups, being closer to the PA group (bending modulus resin PR 2665 MPa vs. skull PR 1979 MPa, resin PA 3165 MPa vs. skull PA 3330 MPa; maximum force resin PR 574 N vs. skull PR 728 N, resin PA 580 N vs. skull PA 1034 N; strain at maximum force resin PR 2.7% vs. skull PR 5.1%, resin PA 2.3% vs. skull PA 3.5%, deflection at maximum force resin PR 0.5 mm vs. skull PR 0.8 mm, resin PA 0.5 mm vs. skull PA 1.0 mm). Bending strength was significantly lower in the resin groups (resin PR 43 MPa vs. skull PR 55 MPa, resin PA 44 MPa vs. skull PA 75 MPa). Moreover, the correlations of the mechanical data exhibited closer accordance of the PR group with the epoxy resin compared with the PA group with the epoxy resin.

Conclusions

The load-deformation properties of the epoxy resin samples assessed in this study fell within a closer range to the skull specimens with PR  than with PA. Moreover, the values obtained for the resin fall within the reference range for skull tissues in the literature suggesting that the proposed epoxy resin may provide a usable artificial substitute for PA but does not totally represent the human skull in its complex anatomical structure.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Stewart MC, Goliath JR, Stout SD, Hubbe M (2015) Intraskeletal variability of relative cortical area in humans. Anat Rec 298:1635–1643. https://doi.org/10.1002/ar.23181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Griffin M, Premakumar Y, Seifalian A, Butler PE, Szarko M (2016) Biomechanical characterization of human soft tissues using indentation and tensile testing. J Vis Exp 118. https://doi.org/10.3791/54872

  3. Thali MJ, Kneubuehl BP, Zollinger U, Dirnhofer R (2002) The “skin–skull–brain model”: a new instrument for the study of gunshot effects. Forensic Sci Int 125:178–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0379-0738(01)00637-5

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Thali MJ, Kneubuehl BP, Dirnhofer R, Zollinger U (2002) The dynamic development of the muzzle imprint by contact gunshot: high-speed documentation utilizing the “skin-skull-brain model”. Forensic Sci Int 127:168–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0379-0738(02)00117-2

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Delille R, Lesueur D, Potier P, Drazetic P, Markiewicz E (2007) Experimental study of the bone behaviour of the human skull bone for the development of a physical head model. Int J Crashworthiness 12:101–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/13588260701433081

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Motherway JA, Verschueren P, van der Perre G, van der Sloten J, Gilchrist MD (2009) The mechanical properties of cranial bone: the effect of loading rate and cranial sampling position. J Biomech 42:2129–2135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2009.05.030

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Auperrin A, Delille R, Lesueur D, Bruyère K, Masson C, Drazétic P (2014) Geometrical and material parameters to assess the macroscopic mechanical behaviour of fresh cranial bone samples. J Biomech 47:1180–1185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2013.10.060

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Rahmoun J, Auperrin A, Delille R, Naceur H, Drazetic P (2014) Characterization and micromechanical modeling of the human cranial bone elastic properties. Mech Res Commun 60:7–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechrescom.2014.04.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Torimitsu S, Nishida Y, Takano T, Yajima D, Inokuchi G, Makino Y, Motomura A, Chiba F, Yamaguchi R, Hashimoto M, Hoshioka Y, Iwase H (2015) Differences in biomechanical properties and thickness among frontal and parietal bones in a Japanese sample. Forensic Sci Int 252:190.e1–190.e6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2015.04.029

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Freitas CJ, Mathis JT, Scott N, Bigger RP, Mackiewicz J (2014) Dynamic response due to behind helmet blunt trauma measured with a human head surrogate. Int J Med Sci 11:409–425. https://doi.org/10.7150/ijms.8079

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Roberts JC, Merkle AC, Carneal CM, Voo LM, Johannes MS, Paulson JM, Tankard S, Uy OM (2013) Development of a human cranial bone surrogate for impact studies. Front Bioeng Biotechnol 1:13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2013.00013

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Falland-Cheung L, Waddell JN, Chun LK, Tong D, Brunton P (2017) Investigation of the elastic modulus, tensile and flexural strength of five skull simulant materials for impact testing of a forensic skin/skull/brain model. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 68:303–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2017.02.023

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Das R, Collins A, Verma A, Fernandez J, Taylor M (2015) Evaluating simulant materials for understanding cranial backspatter from a ballistic projectile. J Forensic Sci 60:627–637. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.12701

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Yan W, Pangestu OD (2011) A modified human head model for the study of impact head injury. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin 14:1049–1057. https://doi.org/10.1080/10255842.2010.506435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Carr D, Lindstrom AC, Jareborg A, Champion S, Waddell JN, Miller D et al (2015) Development of a skull/brain model for military wound ballistics studies. Int J Legal Med 129:505–510. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-014-1073-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Mahoney P, Carr D, Arm R, Gibb I, Hunt N, Delaney RJ (2018) Ballistic impacts on an anatomically correct synthetic skull with a surrogate skin/soft tissue layer. Int J Legal Med 132:519–530. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-017-1737-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Mahoney P, Carr D, Delaney RJ, Hunt N, Harrison S, Breeze J et al (2017) Does preliminary optimization of an anatomically correct skull-brain model using simple simulants produce clinically realistic ballistic injury fracture patterns? Int J Legal Med 131:1043–1053. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-017-1557-y

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Li Z, Hu J, Reed MP, Rupp JD, Hoff CN, Zhang J, Cheng B (2011) Development, validation, and application of a parametric pediatric head finite element model for impact simulations. Ann Biomed Eng 39:2984–2997. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-011-0409-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. De Kegel D, Vastmans J, Fehervary H, Depreitere B, van der Sloten J, Famaey N (2018) Biomechanical characterization of human dura mater. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 79:122–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2017.12.023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Lee JHC, Ondruschka B, Falland-Cheung L, Scholze M, Hammer N, Tong DC, Waddell JN (2019) An investigation on the correlation between the mechanical properties of human skull bone, its geometry, microarchitectural properties, and water content. J Healthc Eng 2019:6515797. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/6515797

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. MacManus DB, Pierrat B, Murphy JG, Gilchrist MD (2017) Protection of cortex by overlying meninges tissue during dynamic indentation of the adolescent brain. Acta Biomater 57:384–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2017.05.022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Bradley AL, Swain MV, Waddell JN, Das R, Athens J, Kieser J (2014) A comparison between rib fracture patterns in peri- and post-mortem compressive injury in a piglet model. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 33:67–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2013.06.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Lillie EM, Urban JE, Lynch SK, Weaver AA, Stitzel JD (2016) Evaluation of skull cortical thickness changes with age and sex from computed tomography scans. J Bone Miner Res 31:299–307. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.2613

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Vesper EO, Hammond MA, Allen MR, Wallace JM (2017) Even with rehydration, preservation in ethanol influences the mechanical properties of bone and how bone responds to experimental manipulation. Bone 97:49–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2017.01.001

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Steinke H, Lingslebe U, Böhme J, Slowik V, Shim V, Hädrich C, Hammer N (2012) Deformation behaviour of the iliotibial tract under different states of fixation. Med Eng Phys 34:1221–1227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medengphy.2011.12.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Hammer N, Voigt C, Werner M, Hoffmann F, Bente K, Kunze H, Scholz R, Steinke H (2014) Ethanol and formaldehyde irreversibly alter bones’ organic matrix. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 29:252–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2013.09.008

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express their gratitude to the body donors for donating their corpses to science. Aqeeda Singh proofread the article as a native speaker. Robby McPhee helped with the illustration in Fig. 1.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Benjamin Ondruschka, Jik Hang Clifford Lee, John Neil Waddell, and Niels Hammer contributed equally to this work as first and senior authors.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Legal Medicine, University of Leipzig, Johannisallee 28, 04103, Leipzig, Germany

    Benjamin Ondruschka

  2. Faculty of Dentistry, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand

    Jik Hang Clifford Lee & John Neil Waddell

  3. Institute of Materials Science and Engineering, Chemnitz University of Technology, Chemnitz, Germany

    Mario Scholze

  4. Department of Anatomy, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand

    Mario Scholze, Johann Zwirner & Niels Hammer

  5. Department of Oral Diagnostic and Surgical Sciences, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand

    Darryl Tong

  6. Sir John Walsh Research Institute, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand

    John Neil Waddell

  7. Department of Orthopedic, Trauma and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany

    Niels Hammer

  8. Fraunhofer Institute for Machine Tools and Forming Technology IWU, Dresden, Germany

    Niels Hammer

Authors
  1. Benjamin Ondruschka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jik Hang Clifford Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mario Scholze
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Johann Zwirner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Darryl Tong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. John Neil Waddell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Niels Hammer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Benjamin Ondruschka.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

Ethical approval was granted by the University of Otago Human Ethics Committee (Health) (ref: H17/02) and Māori consultation from the Ngāi Tahu Research Consultation Committee was sought for this project.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ondruschka, B., Lee, J.H.C., Scholze, M. et al. A biomechanical comparison between human calvarial bone and a skull simulant considering the role of attached periosteum and dura mater. Int J Legal Med 133, 1603–1610 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-019-02102-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-019-02102-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation