Young’s modulus and hardness of human trabecular bone with bisphosphonate treatment durations up to 20 years
Bone modulus from patients with osteoporosis treated with bisphosphonates for 1 to 20 years was analyzed. Modulus increases during the first 6 years of treatment and remains unchanged thereafter.
Bisphosphonates are widely used for treating osteoporosis, but the relationship between treatment duration and bone quality is unclear. Since material properties partially determine bone quality, the present study quantified the relationship between human bone modulus and hardness with bisphosphonate treatment duration.
Iliac crest bone samples from a consecutive case series of 86 osteoporotic Caucasian women continuously treated with oral bisphosphonates for 1.1–20 years were histologically evaluated to assess bone turnover and then tested using nanoindentation. Young’s modulus and hardness were measured and related to bisphosphonate treatment duration by statistical modeling.
All bone samples had low bone turnover. Statistical models showed that with increasing bisphosphonate treatment duration, modulus and hardness increased, peaked, and plateaued. These models used quadratic terms to model modulus increases from 1 to 6 years of bisphosphonate treatment and linear terms to model modulus plateaus from 6 to 20 years of treatment. The treatment duration at which the quadratic–linear transition (join point) occurred also depended upon trabecular location. Hardness increased and peaked at 12.4 years of treatment; it remained constant for the next 7.6 years of treatment and was insensitive to trabecular location.
Bone modulus increases with bisphosphonate treatment durations up to 6 years, no additional modulus increases occurred after 6 years of treatment. Although hardness increased, peaked at 12.4 years and remained constant for the next 7.6 years of BP treatment, the clinical relevance of hardness remains unclear.
KeywordsBone biomechanics Bone hardness Bone modulus Bone quality Nanoindentation
Financial support from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases of the National Institutes of Health (R01 AR061578) and the Kentucky Nephrology Research Trust is gratefully acknowledged. Daniel Shaw Porter, PhD provided technical assistance and George Pharr, PhD and the High Temperature Materials Group at Oak Ridge National Laboratory provided advice. Jin Xie provided assistance with statistical analyses. Opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
All authors were supported by NIH-NIAMS Award R01 AR061578. HM was also supported by the Kentucky Nephrology Research Trust.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflicts of interest
David Pienkowski, Constance Wood, and Hartmut Malluche declare that they have no conflict of interest. This study was supported by awards from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases of the National Institutes of Health (R01 AR061578) and the Kentucky Nephrology Research Trust.
- 5.(2016) The duration and safety of osteoporosis treatment. Abrahamsen B and Stuart Silverman S (eds). Springer International Publishing, pp. 17-36Google Scholar
- 7.Cummings SR, Black DM, Thompson DE, Applegate WB, Barrett-Connor E, Musliner TA, Palermo L, Prineas R, Rubin SM, Scott JC, Vogt T, Wallace R, Yates AJ, LaCroix A (1998) Effect of alendronate on risk of fracture in women with low bone density but without vertebral fractures: results from the Fracture Intervention Trial. JAMA 280:2077–2082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Burr DB, Lane JE, Howe TS, Ng AC, Ebeling PR (2017) Response to PD Miller, Underdiagnosis and undertreatment of osteoporosis: the battle to be won. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 102:1088–1089Google Scholar
- 20.Monier-Faugere MC, Langub MC, Malluche HH (1997) Bone biopsies: a modern approach. In: Avioli LV, Krane SM (eds) Metabolic bone disease, 3rd edn. WB Saunders Co, pp 237–273Google Scholar
- 22.Malluche HH and Monier-Faugere MC (1986) Atlas of mineralized bone histology. Karger, Basel, pp. 18–25.Google Scholar
- 29.Zoehrer R, Roschger P, Paschalis EP, Hofstaetter JG, Durchschlag E, Fratzl P, Phipps R, Klaushofer K (2006) Effects of 3- and 5-year treatment with risedronate on bone mineralization density distribution in triple biopsies of the iliac crest in postmenopausal women. J Bone Miner Res 21:1106–1112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 33.Black DM, Thompson DE, Bauer DC, Ensrud K, Musliner T, Hochberg MC, Nevitt MC, Suryawanshi S, Cummings SR, Fracture Intervention T (2000) Fracture risk reduction with alendronate in women with osteoporosis: the Fracture Intervention Trial. FIT Research Group. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 85:4118–4124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 42.Li ZC, Dai LY, Jiang LS, Qiu S (2012) Difference in subchondral cancellous bone between postmenopausal women with hip osteoarthritis and osteoporotic fracture: implication for fatigue microdamage, bone microarchitecture, and biomechanical properties. Arthritis Rheum 64:3955–3962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 43.Brody JE (2018) A perfect storm for broken bones. The New York Times, New YorkGoogle Scholar