Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Temporal evolution of mechanical properties of skeletal tissue regeneration in rabbits: an experimental study

  • Short Communication
  • Published:
Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Various mathematical models represent the effects of local mechanical environment on the regulation of skeletal regeneration. Their relevance relies on an accurate description of the evolving mechanical properties of the regenerating tissue. The object of this study was to develop an experimental model which made it possible to characterize the temporal evolution of the structural and mechanical properties during unloaded enchondral osteogenesis in the New Zealand rabbit, a standard animal model for studies of osteogenesis and chondrogenesis. A 25 mm segment of tibial diaphysis was removed sub-periosteally from rabbits. The defect was repaired by the preserved periosteum. An external fixator was applied to prevent mechanical loading during osteogenesis. The regenerated skeletal tissues were studied by CT scan, histology and mechanical tests. The traction tests between 7 and 21 days post-surgery were done on formaldehyde-fixated tissue allowing to obtain force/displacement curves. The viscoelastic properties of the regenerating skeletal tissues were visualized throughout the repair process.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

References

  1. Akizuki S, Mow VC, Muller F, Pita JC, Howell DS, Manicourt DH (1986) Tensile properties of human knee joint cartilage: I. Influence of ionic conditions, weight bearing, and fibrillation on the tensile modulus. J Orthop Res 4:379–392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Blenman PR, Carter DR, Beaupre GS (1989) Role of mechanical loading in the progressive ossification of a fracture callus. J Orthop Res 7:398–407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Caplan AI (1994) The mesengenic process. Clin Plast Surg 21:429–435

    Google Scholar 

  4. Carter DR, Beaupre GS, Giori NJ, Helms JA (1998) Mechanobiology of skeletal regeneration. Clin Orthop (355 Suppl):S41–S55

    Google Scholar 

  5. Carter DR, Blenman PR, Beaupre GS (1988) Correlations between mechanical stress history and tissue differentiation in initial fracture healing. J Orthop Res 6:736–748

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Cheal EJ, Mansmann KA, DiGioia AM III, Hayes WC Perren SM (1991) Role of interfragmentary strain in fracture healing: ovine model of a healing osteotomy. J Orthop Res 9:131–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Claes LE, Heigele CA (1999) Magnitudes of local stress and strain along bony surfaces predict the course and type of fracture healing. J Biomech 32:255–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Crandall JR (2006) The preservation of human surrogates for Biomechanical studies, thesis of the Faculty of the school of Engineering and applied science, University of Virginia, 1994

  9. Cullinane DM, Salisbury KT, Alkhiary Y, Eisenberg S, Gerstenfeld L, Einhorn TA (2003) Effects of the local mechanical environment on vertebrate tissue differentiation during repair: does repair recapitulate development? J Exp Biol 206:2459–2471

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Davy DT, Connolly JF (1982) The biomechanical behavior of healing canine radii and ribs. J Biomech 15:235–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. DiGioia AM III, Cheal EJ, Hayes WC (1986) Three-dimensional strain fields in a uniform osteotomy gap. J Biomech Eng 108:273–280

    Google Scholar 

  12. Ferguson C, Alpern E, Miclau T, Helms JA (1999) Does adult fracture repair recapitulate embryonic skeletal formation? Mech Dev 87:57–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Fukumoto T, Sanyal A, Fitzsimmons JS, O’Driscoll SW (2002) Expression of beta1 integrins during periosteal chondrogenesis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 10:135–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Fung YC (1993) Biomechanics mechanical properties of living tissues. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  15. Gabet Y, Muller R, Regev E, Sela J, Shteyer A, Salisbury K, Chorev M, Bab I (2004) Osteogenic growth peptide modulates fracture callus structural and mechanical properties. Bone 35:65–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Geris L, Gerisch A, Maes C, Carmeliet G, Weiner R, Sloten JV, Oosterwyck HV (2006) Mathematical modelling of fracture healing in mice: comparaison between experimental data and numerical simulation results. Med Biol Eng Comput 44:280–289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Heegaard JH, Beaupre GS, Carter DR (1999) Mechanically modulated cartilage growth may regulate joint surface morphogenesis. J Orthop Res 17:509–517

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Huiskes R, Driel WD, Prendergast PJ, Soballe K (1997) A biomechanical regulatory model for periprosthetic fibrous-tissue differentiation. J Mater Sci Mater Med 8:785–788

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Loboa EG, Wren TA, Beaupre GS, Carter DR (2003) Mechanobiology of soft skeletal tissue differentiation—a computational approach of a fiber-reinforced poroelastic model based on homogeneous and isotropic simplifications. Biomech Model Mechanobiol 2:83–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Mikic B, Isenstein AL, Chhabra A (2004) Mechanical modulation of cartilage structure and function during embryogenesis in the chick. Ann Biomed Eng 32:18–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Miller K (2005) Method of testing very soft biological tissues in compression. J Biomech 38:153–158

    Google Scholar 

  22. Mizuta H, Sanyal A, Fukumoto T, Fitzsimmons JS, Matsui N, Bolander ME, Oursler MJ, O’Driscoll SW (2002) The spatiotemporal expression of TGF-beta1 and its receptors during periosteal chondrogenesis in vitro. J Orthop Res 20:562–574

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Mow VC, Kuei SC, Lai WM, Armstrong CG (1980) Biphasic creep and stress relaxation of articular cartilage in compression? Theory and experiments. J Biomech Eng 102:73–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. O’Driscoll SW, Fitzsimmons JS (2001) The role of periosteum in cartilage repair. Clin Orthop Relat Res (391 Suppl):S190–S207

    Google Scholar 

  25. Prendergast PJ, Huiskes R, Soballe K (1997) ESB Research Award 1996. Biophysical stimuli on cells during tissue differentiation at implant interfaces. J Biomech 30:539–548

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Setton LA, Elliott DM, Mow VC (1999) Altered mechanics of cartilage with osteoarthritis: human osteoarthritis and an experimental model of joint degeneration. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 7:2–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Shefelbine SJ, Simon U, Claes L, Gold A, Gabet Y, Bab I, Muller R, Augat P (2005) Prediction of fracture callus mechanical properties using micro-CT images and voxel-based finite element analysis. Bone 36:480–488

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Simon TM, Van Sickle DC, Kunishima DH, Jackson DW (2003) Cambium cell stimulation from surgical release of the periosteum. J Orthop Res 21:470–480

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Ueno T, Kagawa T, Kanou M, Fujii T, Fukunaga J, Mizukawa N, Sugahara T, Yamamoto T (2003) Immunohistochemical observations of cellular differentiation and proliferation in endochondral bone formation from grafted periosteum: expression and localization of BMP-2 and -4 in the grafted periosteum. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 31:356–361

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Unimeca (Marseilles) and particularly C. Hochard who allowed us to use the traction device. We would like to thank M. Tellache for his contribution to the mechanical testing. We would like to thank Dr. Pourquier for histological analyses. We would like to thank Dr. J. L. Ferran and the staff of the radiology department at the Clinique St Jean (Montpellier) for their contribution to the imaging studies. We would like to thank P. Chavet for her help in the statistical study. We also thank S. Séguinel for her grammar and vocabulary corrections.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratoire d’Aérodynamique et de Biomécanique du Mouvement (LABM), Université de la méditerranée, 163 avenue de Luminy, Case Postale 918, 13288, Marseille Cedex 09, France

    Didier Moukoko, Martine Pithioux & Patrick Chabrand

  2. Laboratoire de Chirurgie Expérimentale, Faculté de Médecine, Université Montpellier I, 4 Boulevard Henri IV, 34000, Montpellier, France

    Didier Moukoko

Authors
  1. Didier Moukoko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Martine Pithioux
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Patrick Chabrand
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martine Pithioux.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Moukoko, D., Pithioux, M. & Chabrand, P. Temporal evolution of mechanical properties of skeletal tissue regeneration in rabbits: an experimental study. Med Bio Eng Comput 45, 989–995 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11517-007-0237-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11517-007-0237-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation