Annals of Biomedical Engineering

, Volume 22, Issue 5, pp 532–539 | Cite as

Progression of osteoporosis in cancellous bone depending on trabecular structure

  • M. Morita
  • A. Ebihara
  • M. Itoman
  • T. Sasada
Research Articles
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:

Abstract

Progression of osteoporosis is caused by a decline in bone formation activity relative to the resorption activity. In this paper, the authors carried out a theoretical analysis of the progression of osteoporosis to estimate the osteoporotic change in the upper end of the femur. According to this analysis, the progression rate of osteoporosis in cancellous bone depends on the product of remodeling activity,Ract, and the trabecular structure parameter,Ktr. To confirm that the theoretical results were reasonably comparable to actual osteoporotic change, these two factors were measured in rabbits. From the results, it was concluded that the highest progression rate was shown in bar/barlike trabecular structure (type 3); the next highest rate, was shown in plate/bar-like structure (type 2); and the plate/plate-like structure (type 1) was the most insensible. Furthermore, the bone volume fractions of cancellous bone were measured at the upper end of human femurs with and without osteoporosis. Then the measured value was compared with the theoretical value for each type of trabecular structure. Results showed that the decrease in bone volume fraction predicted by Eq. 7 was well in accord with the actual decrease.

Keywords

Osteoporosis Trabecular structure Bone metabolism Femoral neck fracture 
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. 1.
    Avioli, L. V. Osteoporosis, Metabolic Bone Disease. New York: Academic Press, 1977.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Carter, D. R., D. P. Fyhrie, and R. T. Whalen. Trabecular bone density and loading history: regulation of connective tissue biology by mechanical energy.J. Biomech. 20:785–794, 1987.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cowin, S. C., and D. H. Hegedus. Bone remodeling. I: Theory of adaptive elasticity.J. Elasticity 6:313–326, 1976.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Frost, H. M. Tetracycline labeling of bone and the zone of demarcation of osteoid seam.J. Biochem. Physiol. 40:485–489, 1962.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Frost, H. M. Measurement of human bone formation by means of tetracycline labeling.Can. J. Biochem. Physiol. 41:31–42, 1963.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Frost, H. M. Bone dynamics in metabolic bone disease.J. Bone Joint Surg. 48-A:1192–1203, 1966.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gibson, L. J. The mechanical behavior of cancellous bone.J. Biomech. 18:317–328, 1985.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hart, R. T., D. T. Davy, and K. G. Heiple. Mathematical modeling and numerical solutions for functionally dependent bone remodeling.Calcif. Tissue Int. 36:S104–S109, 1984.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Huiskes, R. Adaptive bone-remodeling analysis.Chir. Org. Mov. LXXVII,II:121–133, 1992.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kock, J. C. The laws of bone architecture.Am. J. Anat. 21:177, 1917.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Milch, R. A., D. P. Rall, and J. E. Toble. Bone localization of the tetracycline.J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 19:87–93, 1957.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Morita, M., N. Sasamoto, M. Yamamoto, and T. Sasada. Mechanical properties of cancellous bone and its trabecular structure. Proc. 26th Jpn. Cong. Mater. Res., 1983, 233–240.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rice, J. C., S. C. Cowin and J. A. Bowman. On the dependency of the elasticity and strength of cancellous bone on apparent density.J. Biomech. 21:155–168, 1988.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Richardson, S. P., A. Winck, and J. Black. Mechanical behavior of osteoporotic bone structural approach.Trans. Orthop. Res. Soc. 11:462, 1986.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shing, M., A. R. Nagrath, and P. S. Maini. Changes in trabecular pattern of upper end of the femur as an index of osteoporosis.J. Bone Joint Surg. 52-A: 457–467, 1970.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Takahashi, H., and H. M. Frost. A tetracycline based comparison of the number of cortical bone forming sites in normal and diabetic persons.J. Jpn. Orthop. Assoc. 39:1115–1121, 1966.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Turner, C. H. On Wolff’s law of trabecular architecture.J. Biomech. 25:1–9, 1992.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Underwood, E. E. Quantitative Stereology, chapter 3. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1965.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wolff, J. Uber die innere Architektur der Knechen und Bedeutung fur die Frage vom Knochenwachstum.Virchows Arch. Pathol. Anat. 50:389, 1870.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Biomedical Engineering Society 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Morita
    • 3
  • A. Ebihara
    • 1
  • M. Itoman
    • 1
  • T. Sasada
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryKitasato University School of MedicineSagamiharaJapan
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical EngineeringChiba Institute of TechnologyNarashino, ChibaJapan
  3. 3.Department of Biomedical EngineeringKitasato University School of MedicineSagamihara, KanagawaJapan

Personalised recommendations