Single-trabecula building block for large-scale finite element models of cancellous bone

Article
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Recent development of high-resolution imaging of cancellous bone allows finite element (FE) analysis of bone tissue stresses and strains in individual trabeculae. However, specimen-specific stress/strain analyses can include effects of anatomical variations and local damage that can bias the interpretation of the results from individual specimens with respect to large populations. This study developed a standard (generic) ‘building-block’ of a trabecula for large-scale FE models. Being parametric and based on statistics of dimensions of ovine trabeculae, this building block can be scaled for trabecular thickness and length and be used in commercial or custom-made FE codes to construct generic, large-scale FE models of bone, using less computer power than that currently required to reproduce the accurate micro-architecture of trabecular bone. Orthogonal lattices constructed with this building block, after it was scaled to trabeculae of the human proximal femur, provided apparent elastic moduli of ∼ 150 MPa, in good agreement with experimental data for the stiffness of cancellous bone from this site. Likewise, lattices with thinner, osteoporotic-like trabeculae could predict a reduction of ∼30% in the apparent elastic modulus, as reported in experimental studies of osteoporotic femora. Based on these comparisons, it is concluded that the single-trabecula element developed in the present study is well-suited for representing cancellous bone in large-scale generic FE simulations.

Keywords

Spongy bone Trabecular tissue stiffness Apparent elastic modulus Constitutive properties Osteoporosis 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. An, Y. H., andFriedman, R. J. (1999): ‘Animal models in orthopaedic research’ (CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, USA, 1999)Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, I. A., andCarman, J. B. (2000): ‘How do changes to plate thickness, length, and face-connectivity affect femoral cancellous bone's density and surface area? An investigation using regular cellular models’,J. Biomech.,33, pp. 327–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Augat, P., Link, T., Lang, T. F., Lin, J. C., Majumdar, S., andGenant, H. K. (1998): ‘Anisotropy of the elastic modulus of trabecular bone specimens from different anatomical locations’,Med. Eng. Phys.,20, pp. 124–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Banse, X., Delloye, C., Cornu, O., andBourgois, R. (1996): ‘Comparative left-right mechanical testing of cancellous bone from normal femoral heads’,J. Biomech.,29, pp. 1247–1253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bay, B. K., Yerby, S. A., McLain, R. F., andToh, E. (1999): ‘Measurement of strain distributions within vertebral body sections by texture correlation’,Spine,24, pp. 10–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown, S. J., Pollintine, P., Powell, D. E., Davie, M. W., andSharp, C. A. (2002): ‘Regional differences in mechanical and material properties of femoral head cancellous bone in health and osteoarthritis’,Calcif. Tissue Int.,71, pp. 227–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fajardo, R. J., andMuller, R. (2001): ‘Three-dimensional analysis of nonhuman primate trabecular architecture using micro-computed tomography’,Am. J. Phys. Anthropol.,115, pp. 327–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gefen, A., andSeliktar, R. (2004): ‘Comparison of the trabecular architecture and the isostatic stress flow in the human calcaneus’,Med. Eng. Phy.,26, pp. 119–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gibson, L. J. (1985): ‘The mechanical behaviour of cancellous bone’,J. Biomech.,18, pp. 317–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Guldberg, R. E., Hollister, S. J., andCharras, G. T. (1998): ‘The accuracy of digital image-based finite element models’,J. Biomech. Eng.,120, pp. 289–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Homminga, J., McCreadie, B. R., Ciarelli, T. E., Weinans, H., Goldstein, S. A., andHuiskes, R. (2002): ‘Cancellous bone mechanical properties from normals and patients with hip fractures differ on the structure level, not on the bone hard tissue level’,Bone,30, pp. 759–764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kim, H. S., andAl-Hassani, S. T. (2002): ‘A morphological model of vertebral trabecular bone’,J. Biomech.,35, pp. 1101–1114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kohles, S. S., andRoberts, J. B. (2002): ‘Linear poroelastic cancellous bone anisotropy: trabecular solid elastic and fluid transport properties’,J. Biomech. Eng.,124, pp. 521–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kowalczyk, P. (2003): ‘Elastic properties of cancellous bone derived from finite element models of parameterized microstructure cells’,J. Biomech.,36, pp. 961–972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Krischak, G. D., Augat, P., Wachter, N. J., Kinzl, L., andClaes, L. E. (1999): ‘Predictive value of bone mineral density and Singh index for thein vitro mechanical properties of cancellous bone in the femoral head’,Clin. Biomech.,14, pp. 346–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Li, B., andAspden, R. M. (1997): ‘Material properties of bone from the femoral neck and calcar femorale of patients with osteoporosis or osteoarthritis’,Osteoporosos Int.,7, pp. 450–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Morgan, E. F., Bayraktar, H. H., andKeaveny, T. M. (2003): ‘Trabecular bone modulus-density relationships depend on anatomic site’,J. Biomech.,36, pp. 897–904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Puzas, J. E. (1996): ‘Osteoblast cell biology — lineage and functions’, inFavus, M. J. (Ed.): ‘Primer on the metabolic bone diseases and disorders of mineral metabolism, 3rd edn’ (Lippincot Raven, 1996), pp. 11–16Google Scholar
  19. Rho, J. Y., Ashman, R. B., andTurner, C. H. (1993): ‘Young's modulus of trabecular and cortical bone material: ultrasonic and microtensile measurements’,J. Biomech.,26, pp. 111–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Townsend, P. R., Rose, R. M., andRadin, E. L. (1975): ‘Buckling studies of single human trabeculae’,J. Biomech.,8, pp. 199–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. van Rietbergen, B., Weinans, H., Huiskes, R., andOdgaard, A. (1995): ‘A new method to determine trabecular bone elastic properties and loading using micromechanical finite-element models’,J. Biomech.,28, pp. 69–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. van Rietbergen, B., Muller, R., Ulrich, D., Ruegsegger, P., andHuiskes, R. (1999): ‘Tissue stresses and strain in trabeculae of a canine proximal femur can be quantified from computer reconstructions’,J. Biomech.,32, pp. 443–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. van Rietbergen, B., Huiskes, R., Eckstein, F., andRuegsegger, P. (2003): ‘Trabecular bone tissue strains in the healthy and osteoporotic human femur’,J. Bone Miner. Res.,18, pp. 1781–1788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Viceconti, M., Ansaloni, M., Baleani, M., andToni, A. (2003): ‘The muscle standardized femur: a step forward in the replication of numerical studies in biomechanics’,Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng.,217, pp. 105–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Werner, H. J., Martin, H., Behrend, D., Schmitz, K. P., andSchober, H. C. (1996): ‘The loss of stiffness as osteoporosis progresses’,Med. Eng. Phys.,18, pp. 601–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFMBE 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringTel Aviv UniversityIsrael

Personalised recommendations