Microcracks in cortical bone: How do they affect bone biology?
- 292 Downloads
Microcrack accumulation in cortical bone has been implicated in skeletal fragility and stress fractures. These cracks have also been shown to affect the mechanical and material properties of cortical bone. Their growth has been linked to osteocyte apoptosis and the initiation of the remodeling process, which also has a role in their repair. Clinically, osteoporosis is diagnosed using dual energy x-ray absorptiometry. However, evidence now indicates that bone mass alone is insufficient to satisfactorily explain the skeletal fragility of osteoporosis and consideration needs to be given to bone quality in the diagnosis and treatment of the disease. Bone quality includes parameters such as trabecular and cortical microarchitecture, morphology, bone turnover, degree of mineralization of the bone matrix, and significantly, the amount of microdamage present in the bone. Current clinical treatments concentrate on the inhibition of osteoclast activity to maintain bone mass in osteoporotic patients. However, these cells have a major role in removing existing microcracks from the bone matrix, and hence the use of bone resorption-inhibiting drugs may lead to insufficient bone repair and therefore an increase in microdamage accumulation and loss of bone quality.
KeywordsOsteoporosis Cortical Bone Risedronate Etidronate Fluid Shear Stress
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References and Recommended Reading
- 1.O’Brien FJ, Taylor D, Lee TC: Microcrack accumulation at different intervals during fatigue testing of compact bone. J Biomech 2003, 36:973–980. Cyclical fatigue loading was carried out on machined samples of cortical bone. The interaction of the resulting microcracks with the microstructural features of the bone was studied using an optimized sequential labeling technique.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3.Matheson GO, Clement DB, McKenzie DC, et al.: Stress fractures in athletes: a study of 320 cases. Am J Sports Med 1985, 13:342–348.Google Scholar
- 11.International Osteoporosis Foundation Study Group, 2002: Osteoporosis in the workplace: the social, economic and human costs of osteoporosis on employees, employers & governments. www.osteofound.org/publications/ workplace_report.html. Accessed November 10, 2004.Google Scholar
- 12.Hayes WC, Bouxsein ML: Biomechanics of cortical and trabecular bone: implications for assessment of fracture risk. In Basic Orthopaedic Biomechanics. Edited by Maow VC, Hayes WC. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Publishers; 1997, 69–107.Google Scholar
- 17.Taylor D, Prendergast PJ: A model for fatigue crack propagation and remodeling in compact bone. Proc Inst Mech Eng [H] 1997, 211:369–375.Google Scholar
- 22.Sobelman OS, Gibeling JC, Stover SM, et al.: Do microcracks decrease or increase fatigue resistance in cortical bone? J Biomech 2004, 37:1295–1303. Rectangular beams of cortical bone were fatigue tested in compression. The resulting microcracks were compared with fatigue life of the specimen. The results of this study indicate that microcracks can increase the fatigue resistance of cortical bone.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.Danova NA, Colopy SA, Radtke CL, et al.: Degradation of bone structural properties by accumulation and coalesence of microcracks. Bone 2003, 33:197–205. Rat ulnae were used to test the effect of microdamage on the structural integrity of the tissue. Results from this study indicate that accumulation and coalescence of microcracks reduce the resistance to fracture of the bone.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Anyon LE: Osteocytes, strain detection, bone modeling and remodeling. Calcif Tissue Int 1993, 53(Suppl 1):S102-S106.Google Scholar
- 34.Hazenberg JG, Taylor D, Lee TC: Crack opening and shear displacements cause damage to cell processes: is this the cellular transducer. Proceedings of the 14th Conference of the European Society of Biomechanics 2004. Hertogenbosch: The Netherlands.Google Scholar
- 36.McGarry JG, Klein-Nulend J, Mullender MG, Prendergast PJ: A comparison of strain and fluid shear stress in stimulating bone cell responses-a computational and experimental study. FASEB 2005, 19:482–484.Google Scholar
- 39.Noble BS, Peet N, Stevens HY, et al.: Mechanical loading: biphasic osteocyte survival and targeting of osteoclasts for bone destruction in rat cortical bone. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol 2003, 284:C934-C943. This paper looked at the effect of mechanical loading on osteocyte survival. The results suggested that osteocytes use their U-shaped survival response to strain as a mechanism to influence bone remodeling, thereby reflecting a mechanism by which osteocyte apoptosis regulates bone’s structural architecture.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 43.Verborgt O, Tatton NA, Majeska RJ, Schaffler MB: Spatial distribution of Bax and Bcl-2 in osteocytes after bone fatigue: complementary roles in bone remodeling regulation? J Bone Miner Res 2002, 17:907–914. This study looked at the expression pattern of apoptosis-inhibiting gene products by osteocytes. They found that osteocytes surrounding the apoptotic osteocyte at microdamage sites may provide important signals in the guidance of resorption processes that occur in association with osteocyte apoptosis after fatigue.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 45.Dai RU, Liao EY, Yang C, et al.: Microcracks: an alternative index for evaluating bone biomechanical quality. J Bone Miner Metab 2004, 22:2215–2223. In this study, the potential of microcracks as a measure of bone quality was evaluated. The results from this study showed a positive correlation between microcrack accumulation and a reduction in elastic modulus and bone strength.CrossRefGoogle Scholar