Advertisement

Biomechanics and Modeling in Mechanobiology

, Volume 16, Issue 5, pp 1485–1502 | Cite as

Mimetization of the elastic properties of cancellous bone via a parameterized cellular material

  • Lucas Colabella
  • Adrián P. Cisilino
  • Guillaume Häiat
  • Piotr Kowalczyk
Original Paper
  • 255 Downloads

Abstract

Bone tissue mechanical properties and trabecular microarchitecture are the main factors that determine the biomechanical properties of cancellous bone. Artificial cancellous microstructures, typically described by a reduced number of geometrical parameters, can be designed to obtain a mechanical behavior mimicking that of natural bone. In this work, we assess the ability of the parameterized microstructure introduced by Kowalczyk (Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng 9:135–147, 2006. doi: 10.1080/10255840600751473) to mimic the elastic response of cancellous bone. Artificial microstructures are compared with actual bone samples in terms of elasticity matrices and their symmetry classes. The capability of the parameterized microstructure to combine the dominant isotropic, hexagonal, tetragonal and orthorhombic symmetry classes in the proportions present in the cancellous bone is shown. Based on this finding, two optimization approaches are devised to find the geometrical parameters of the artificial microstructure that better mimics the elastic response of a target natural bone specimen: a Sequential Quadratic Programming algorithm that minimizes the norm of the difference between the elasticity matrices, and a Pattern Search algorithm that minimizes the difference between the symmetry class decompositions. The pattern search approach is found to produce the best results. The performance of the method is demonstrated via analyses for 146 bone samples.

Keywords

Cancellous bone Parameterized microstructure Elastic properties Homogenization Symmetry classes Optimization 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work has been supported by projects PIRSES-GA2009_246977 “Numerical Simulation in Technical Sciences” of the Marie Curie Actions FP7-PEOPLE-2009-IRSES of the European Union and by the PICS project “Modeling and Simulation in Multidisciplinary Engineering” MoSiMe funded in the framework of the CAFCI call by CONICET (Argentina) and CNRS (France). This project has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (Grant agreement No. 682001, project ERC Consolidator Grant 2015 BoneImplant).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Be’ery-Lipperman M, Gefen A (2005) Contribution of muscular weakness to osteoporosis: computational and animal models. Clin Biomech 20:984–997. doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2005.05.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bose S, Vahabzadeh S, Bandyopadhyay A (2013) Bone tissue engineering using 3D printing. Mater Today 16:496–504. doi: 10.1016/j.mattod.2013.11.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brennan O, Kennedy OD, Lee TC et al (2009) Biomechanical properties across trabeculae from the proximal femur of normal and ovariectomised sheep. J Biomech 42:498–503. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2008.11.032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Browaeys JT, Chevrot S (2004) Decomposition of the elastic tensor and geophysical applications. Geophys J Int 159:667–678. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2004.02415.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carretta R, Lorenzetti S, Müller R (2013) Towards patient-specific material modeling of trabecular bone post-yield behavior. Int J Numer Method Biomed Eng 29:250–272. doi: 10.1002/cnm.2516 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Colabella L, Ibarra Pino AA, Ballarre J et al (2017) Calculation of cancellous bone elastic properties with the polarization-based FFT iterative scheme. Int J Numer Method Biomed Eng. doi: 10.1002/cnm.2879 Google Scholar
  7. Cowin SC (2001) Bone mechanics handbook, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  8. Cowin SC, Mehrabadi M (1987) On the identification of material symmetry for anisotropic elastic materials. Q J Mech Appl Math 40:451–476. doi: 10.1093/qjmam/40.4.451 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Dagan D, Be’ery M, Gefen A (2004) Single-trabecula building block for large-scale finite element models of cancellous bone. Med Biol Eng Comput 42:549–556. doi: 10.1007/BF02350998 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Doube M, Klosowski MM, Arganda-Carreras I et al (2010) BoneJ: free and extensible bone image analysis in ImageJ. Bone 47:1076–1079. doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2010.08.023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fritsch A, Hellmich C (2007) “Universal” microstructural patterns in cortical and trabecular, extracellular and extravascular bone materials: micromechanics-based prediction of anisotropic elasticity. J Theor Biol 244:597–620. doi: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2006.09.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gill PE, Murray W, Saunders MA, Wright MH (1984) Procedures for optimization problems with a mixture of bounds and general linear constraints. ACM Trans Math Softw 10:282–298. doi: 10.1145/1271.1276 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Gill PE, Murray W, Wright MH (1991) Numerical linear algebra and optimization. Addison-Wesley Pub. Co, Redwood CityzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Goda I, Ganghoffer JF (2015a) Identification of couple-stress moduli of vertebral trabecular bone based on the 3D internal architectures. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 51:99–118. doi: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2015.06.036
  15. Goda I, Ganghoffer JF (2015b) 3D plastic collapse and brittle fracture surface models of trabecular bone from asymptotic homogenization method. Int J Eng Sci 87:58–82. doi: 10.1016/j.ijengsci.2014.10.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goda I, Assidi M, Ganghoffer JF (2014) A 3D elastic micropolar model of vertebral trabecular bone from lattice homogenization of the bone microstructure. Biomech Model Mechanobiol 13:53–83. doi: 10.1007/s10237-013-0486-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gross T, Pahr DH, Zysset PK (2013) Morphology–elasticity relationships using decreasing fabric information of human trabecular bone from three major anatomical locations. Biomech Model Mechanobiol 12:793–800. doi: 10.1007/s10237-012-0443-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Helgason B, Perilli E, Schileo E et al (2008) Mathematical relationships between bone density and mechanical properties: a literature review. Clin Biomech 23:135–146. doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2007.08.024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hollister SJ (2005) Porous scaffold design for tissue engineering. Nat Mater 4:518–524. doi: 10.1038/nmat1421 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kabel J, Odgaard A, van Rietbergen B, Huiskes R (1999a) Connectivity and the elastic properties of cancellous bone. Bone 24:115–120. doi: 10.1016/S8756-3282(98)00164-1 CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. Kabel J, van Rietbergen B, Odgaard A, Huiskes R (1999b) Constitutive relationships of fabric, density, and elastic properties in cancellous bone architecture. Bone 25:481–486. doi: 10.1016/S8756-3282(99)00190-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Keaveny TM, Guo XE, Wachtel EF et al (1994) Trabecular bone exhibits fully linear elastic behavior and yields at low strains. J Biomech. doi: 10.1016/0021-9290(94)90053-1 Google Scholar
  23. Keaveny TM, Morgan EF, Niebur GL, Yeh OC (2001) Biomechanics of trabecular bone. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 3:307–333. doi: 10.1146/annurev.bioeng.3.1.307 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kowalczyk P (2006) Orthotropic properties of cancellous bone modelled as parameterized cellular material. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng 9:135–147. doi: 10.1080/10255840600751473 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kowalczyk P (2010) Simulation of orthotropic microstructure remodelling of cancellous bone. J Biomech 43:563–569. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2009.09.045 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Maquer G, Musy SN, Wandel J et al (2015) Bone volume fraction and fabric anisotropy are better determinants of trabecular bone stiffness than other morphological variables. J Bone Miner Res 30:1000–1008. doi: 10.1002/jbmr.2437 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Oftadeh R, Perez-Viloria M, Villa-Camacho JC et al (2015) Biomechanics and mechanobiology of trabecular bone: a review. J Biomech Eng 137:10802. doi: 10.1115/1.4029176 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Oliver WC, Pharr GM (1992) An improved technique for determining hardness and elastic modulus using load and displacement sensing indentation experiments. J Mater Res 7:1564–1583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Parkinson IH, Fazzalari NL (2013) Characterisation of trabecular bone structure. In: Silva MJ (ed) Skeletal aging and osteoporosis: biomechanics and mechanobiology. Springer, Berlin, pp 31–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sansalone V, Naili S, Bousson V et al (2010) Determination of the heterogeneous anisotropic elastic properties of human femoral bone: from nanoscopic to organ scale. J Biomech 43:1857–1863. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2010.03.034 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sansalone V, Bousson V, Naili S, Bergot C (2012) Anatomical distribution of the degree of mineralization of bone tissue in human femoral neck: impact on biomechanical properties. Bone 50:876–884. doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2011.12.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stauber M, Müller R (2006a) Age-related changes in trabecular bone microstructures: global and local morphometry. Osteoporos Int 17:616–626. doi: 10.1007/s00198-005-0025-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Stauber M, Müller R (2006b) Volumetric spatial decomposition of trabecular bone into rods and plates—a new method for local bone morphometry. Bone 38:475–484. doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2005.09.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. van Rietbergen B, Ito K (2015) A survey of micro-finite element analysis for clinical assessment of bone strength: the first decade. J Biomech 48:832–841. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2014.12.024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. van Rietbergen B, Müller R, Ulrich D et al (1999) Tissue stresses and strain in trabeculae of a canine proximal femur can be quantified from computer reconstructions. J Biomech 32:165–173. doi: 10.1016/S0021-9290(98)00150-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Walker AM, Wookey J (2012) MSAT—a new toolkit for the analysis of elastic and seismic anisotropy. Comput Geosci 49:81–90. doi: 10.1016/j.cageo.2012.05.031 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wang X, Xu S, Zhou S et al (2016) Topological design and additive manufacturing of porous metals for bone scaffolds and orthopaedic implants: a review. Biomaterials 83:127–141. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2016.01.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Yang G, Kabel J, Van Rietbergen B et al (1998) The anisotropic Hooke’s law for cancellous bone and wood. J Elast 53:125–146. doi: 10.1023/A:1007575322693 CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.INTEMA-School of EngineeringCONICET-National University of Mar del PlataMar del PlataArgentina
  2. 2.Laboratoire Modélisation et Simulation Multiéchelle, UMRS CNRS 8208CNRSCreteilFrance
  3. 3.Institute of Fundamental Technological ResearchPolish Academy of SciencesWarsawPoland

Personalised recommendations