Current Osteoporosis Reports

, Volume 3, Issue 2, pp 39–45 | Cite as

Microcracks in cortical bone: How do they affect bone biology?

  • Fergal J. O’Brien
  • Orlaith Brennan
  • Oran D. Kennedy
  • T. Clive Lee


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.


Osteoporosis Cortical Bone Risedronate Etidronate Fluid Shear Stress 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References and Recommended Reading

  1. 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
  2. 2.
    Meurman KO, Elfving S: Stress fracture in soldiers: a multifocal bone disorder. A comparative radiological and scintigraphic study. Radiology 1980, 134:483–487.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. 4.
    Burr DB, Forwood MR, Fyhrie DP, et al.: Bone microdamage and skeletal fragility in osteoporotic and stress fratures. J Bone Miner Res 1997, 12:6–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schaffler MB, Choi K, Milgrom C: Ageing and matrix damage accumulation in human compact bone. Bone 1995, 17:521–525.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Norman TL, Wang Z: Microdamage of human cortical bone: incidence and morphology in long bones. Bone 1997, 20:375–379.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zioupos P: Accumulation of in-vivo fatigue microdamage and its relation to biomechanical properties in ageing human cortical bone. J Microsc 2001, 201:270–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    O’Neill T: The prevalence of vertebral deformity in european men and women: the European Vertebral Osteoporosis Study. J Bone Miner Res 1996, 11:1010–1018.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Melton LJ III: How many women have osteoporosis now? J Bone Miner Res 1995, 10:175–177.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Riggs BL, Melton LJ III: The worldwide problem of osteoporosis: Insights afforded by epidemiology. Bone 1995, 17(Suppl):505S-511S.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    International Osteoporosis Foundation Study Group, 2002: Osteoporosis in the workplace: the social, economic and human costs of osteoporosis on employees, employers & governments. workplace_report.html. Accessed November 10, 2004.Google Scholar
  12. 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
  13. 13.
    Zioupos P, Currey JD, Sedman AJ: An examination of the micromechanics of failure in bone and antler by acoustic emission tests and laser scanning confocal microscopy. Med Eng Physics 1994, 16:203–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schaffler MB, Pitchford W, Choi K, Riddle JM: Examination of compact bone microdamage using back-scattered electron microscopy. Bone 1994, 15:483–488.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lee TC, Arthur TL, Gibson LJ, Hayes WC: Sequential labeling of microdamage in bone using chelating agents. J Orthop Res 2000, 18:322–325.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    O’Brien FJ, Taylor D, Lee TC: An improved labeling technique for monitoring microcracks growth in compact bone. J Biomech 2002, 35:523–526.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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
  18. 18.
    Akkus O, Rimnac CM: Cortical bone tissue resists fatigue fracture by deceleration and arrest of microcrack growth. J Biomech 2001, 34:757–764.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    O’Brien FJ, Taylor D, Lee TC: The effect of bone microstructure on the initiation and growth of microcracks. J Ortho Res 2005, 23:475–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fazzalari NL, Forwood MR, Manthey BA, et al.: Three-dimensional confocal images of microdamage in cancellous bone. Bone 1998, 23:373–378.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    O’Brien FJ, Taylor D, Dickson GR, Lee TC: Visualisation of three dimensional microcracks in compact bone. J Anat 2000, 197:413–420.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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. 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
  24. 24.
    Burr DB, Martin RB: Calculating the probability that microcracks initiate resorption spaces. J Biomech 1993, 26:613–616.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Anyon LE: Osteocytes, strain detection, bone modeling and remodeling. Calcif Tissue Int 1993, 53(Suppl 1):S102-S106.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Weinbaum S, Cowin SC, Zeng Y: A model for the excitation of osteocytes by mechanical loading-induced bone fluid shear stresses. J Biomech 1994, 27:339–360.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Whitfield JF: Primary cilium—is it an osteocyte’s strainsensing flowmeter? J Cell Biochem 2003, 15:233–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lee TC, Staines A, Taylor D: Bone adaptation to load: microdamage as a stimulus for bone remodeling. J Anat 2002, 201:437–446.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mullender MG, Huiskes R: Osteocytes and bone lining cells: which are the best candidates for mechano-sensors in cancellous bone? Bone 1997, 20:527–532.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Smith TS, Martin RB, Hubbard M, Bay BK: Surface remodeling of trabecular bone using a tissue level model. J Orthop Res 1997, 15:593–600.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Taylor D, Hazenberg JG, Lee TC: The cellular transducer in damage-stimulated bone remodeling: a theoretical investigation using fracture mechanics. J Theor Biol 2003, 225:65–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ehrlich PJ, Noble BS, Jessop HL, et al.: The effect of in vivo mechanical loading on estrogen receptor alpha expression in rat ulnar osteocytes. J Bone Miner Res 2002, 17:1646–1655.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Duncan RL, Turner RT: Mechanotransduction and the functional response of bone to mechanical strain. Calcif Tissue Int 1995, 57:344–358.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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
  35. 35.
    Turner CH, Forwood MR: What role does the osteocyte network play in bone adaptation? Bone 1995, 16:283–285.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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
  37. 37.
    Bronckers A, Goei W, Luo G, et al.: DNA fragmentation during bone formation in neonatal rodent assessed by transferase mediated end labeling. J Bone Miner Res 1996, 11:1281–1291.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Noble BS, Stevens H, Loveridge N, Reeve J: Identification of apoptotic changes in osteocytes in normal and pathological human bone. Bone 1997, 20:273–282.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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
  40. 40.
    Vashishth D, Verborgt O, Divine G, et al.: Decline in osteocyte lacunar density in human cortical bone is associated with accumulation of microcracks with age. Bone 2000, 26:375–380.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Parfitt AM: Targeted and nontargeted bone remodeling: relationship to basic multicellular unit origination and progression. Bone 2002, 30:5–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Tami AE, Nasser P, Verborgt O, et al.: The role of interstitial fluid flow in the remodeling response to fatigue loading. J Bone Miner Res 2002, 17:2030–2037.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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
  44. 44.
    Delmas PD, Seeman E: Changes in bone mineral density explain little of the reduction in vertebral or nonvertebral fracture risk with anti-resorptive therapy. Bone 2004, 34:599–604.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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
  46. 46.
    Sparidans RW, Twiss IM, Talbot S: Bisphosphonates in bone diseases. Pharm World Sci 1998, 20:206–213.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Cummings SR: Risk factors for hip fracture in white women. Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group. N Engl J Med 1995, 332:767–773.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Forwood MR, Burr DB, Takano Y, et al.: Risedronate treatment does not increase microdamage in the canine femoral neck. Bone 1995, 16:643–650.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Mashiba T, Turner CH, Hirano T, et al.: Effects of suppressed bone turnover by bisphosphonates on microdamage accumulation on biomechanical properties in clinically relevant skeletal sites in beagles. Bone 2001, 28:524–531.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Hirano T, Turner CH, Forwood MR, et al.: Does suppression of bone turnover impair mechanical properties by allowing microdamage accumulation? Bone 2000, 27:13–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Current Science Inc 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fergal J. O’Brien
    • 1
  • Orlaith Brennan
  • Oran D. Kennedy
  • T. Clive Lee
  1. 1.Department of AnatomyRoyal College of Surgeons in IrelandDublin 2Ireland

Personalised recommendations