Literature DB >> 11005707

If bone is the answer, then what is the question?

R Huiskes1.   

Abstract

In the 19th century, several scientists attempted to relate bone trabecular morphology to its mechanical, load-bearing function. It was suggested that bone architecture was an answer to requirements of optimal stress transfer, pairing maximal strength to minimal weight, according to particular mathematical design rules. Using contemporary methods of analysis, stress transfer in bones was studied and compared with anatomical specimens, from which it was hypothesised that trabecular architecture is associated with stress trajectories. Others focused on the biological processes by which trabecular architectures are formed and on the question of how bone could maintain the relationship between external load and architecture in a variable functional environment. Wilhelm Roux introduced the principle of functional adaptation as a self-organising process based in the tissues. Julius Wolff, anatomist and orthopaedic surgeon, entwined these 3 issues in his book The Law of Bone Remodeling (translation), which set the stage for biomechanical research goals in our day. 'Wolff's Law' is a question rather than a law, asking for the requirements of structural optimisation. In this article, based on finite element analysis (FEA) results of stress transfer in bones, it is argued that it was the wrong question, putting us on the wrong foot. The maximal strength/minimal weight principle does not provide a rationale for architectural formation or adaptation; the similarity between trabecular orientation and stress trajectories is circumstantial, not causal. Based on computer simulations of bone remodelling as a regulatory process, governed by mechanical usage and orchestrated by osteocyte mechanosensitivity, it is shown that Roux's paradigm, conversely, is a realistic proposition. Put in a quantitative regulatory context, it can predict both trabecular formation and adaptation. Hence, trabecular architecture is not an answer to Wolff's question, in the sense of this article's title. There are no mathematical optimisation rules for bone architecture; there is just a biological regulatory process, producing a structure adapted to mechanical demands by the nature of its characteristics, adequate for evolutionary endurance. It is predicted that computer simulation of this process can help us to unravel its secrets.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 11005707      PMCID: PMC1468114          DOI: 10.1046/j.1469-7580.2000.19720145.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Anat        ISSN: 0021-8782            Impact factor:   2.610


  30 in total

Review 1.  Three rules for bone adaptation to mechanical stimuli.

Authors:  C H Turner
Journal:  Bone       Date:  1998-11       Impact factor: 4.398

2.  Effect of mechanical set point of bone cells on mechanical control of trabecular bone architecture.

Authors:  M Mullender; B van Rietbergen; P Rüegsegger; R Huiskes
Journal:  Bone       Date:  1998-02       Impact factor: 4.398

3.  Adaptive bone remodeling incorporating simultaneous density and anisotropy considerations.

Authors:  C R Jacobs; J C Simo; G S Beaupré; D R Carter
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  1997-06       Impact factor: 2.712

4.  Trabecular bone density and loading history: regulation of connective tissue biology by mechanical energy.

Authors:  D R Carter; D P Fyhrie; R T Whalen
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  1987       Impact factor: 2.712

5.  A unifying principle relating stress to trabecular bone morphology.

Authors:  D P Fyhrie; D R Carter
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  1986       Impact factor: 3.494

6.  The history of some fundamental concepts in bone biomechanics.

Authors:  H Roesler
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  1987       Impact factor: 2.712

7.  A physiological approach to the simulation of bone remodeling as a self-organizational control process.

Authors:  M G Mullender; R Huiskes; H Weinans
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  1994-11       Impact factor: 2.712

8.  A new method to determine trabecular bone elastic properties and loading using micromechanical finite-element models.

Authors:  B van Rietbergen; H Weinans; R Huiskes; A Odgaard
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  1995-01       Impact factor: 2.712

9.  Sensitivity of osteocytes to biomechanical stress in vitro.

Authors:  J Klein-Nulend; A van der Plas; C M Semeins; N E Ajubi; J A Frangos; P J Nijweide; E H Burger
Journal:  FASEB J       Date:  1995-03       Impact factor: 5.191

10.  Human vertebral body apparent and hard tissue stiffness.

Authors:  F J Hou; S M Lang; S J Hoshaw; D A Reimann; D P Fyhrie
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  1998-11       Impact factor: 2.712

View more
  32 in total

1.  Can geometry-based parameters from pQCT and material parameters from quantitative ultrasound (QUS) improve the prediction of radial bone strength over that by bone mass (DXA)?

Authors:  M Hudelmaier; V Kuhn; E M Lochmüller; H Well; M Priemel; T M Link; F Eckstein
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2004-01-22       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 2.  Combining geometric morphometrics and functional simulation: an emerging toolkit for virtual functional analyses.

Authors:  Paul O'Higgins; Samuel N Cobb; Laura C Fitton; Flora Gröning; Roger Phillips; Jia Liu; Michael J Fagan
Journal:  J Anat       Date:  2010-09-29       Impact factor: 2.610

3.  Biomimetic materials research: what can we really learn from nature's structural materials?

Authors:  Peter Fratzl
Journal:  J R Soc Interface       Date:  2007-08-22       Impact factor: 4.118

4.  "May the force be with you": 14th Samuel Haughton lecture.

Authors:  P J Prendergast
Journal:  Ir J Med Sci       Date:  2008-07-19       Impact factor: 1.568

5.  Development of the fetal ilium--challenging concepts of bipedality.

Authors:  Craig A Cunningham; Sue M Black
Journal:  J Anat       Date:  2008-11-12       Impact factor: 2.610

6.  Cancellous bone and theropod dinosaur locomotion. Part I-an examination of cancellous bone architecture in the hindlimb bones of theropods.

Authors:  Peter J Bishop; Scott A Hocknull; Christofer J Clemente; John R Hutchinson; Andrew A Farke; Belinda R Beck; Rod S Barrett; David G Lloyd
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2018-10-31       Impact factor: 2.984

7.  Are we crying Wolff? 3D printed replicas of trabecular bone structure demonstrate higher stiffness and strength during off-axis loading.

Authors:  Zach Wood; Lisa Lynn; Jack T Nguyen; Margaret A Black; Meha Patel; Meir M Barak
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2019-08-04       Impact factor: 4.398

Review 8.  Fibula: The Forgotten Bone-May It Provide Some Insight On a Wider Scope for Bone Mechanostat Control?

Authors:  J Rittweger; A Ireland; S Lüscher; L M Nocciolino; N Pilot; L Pisani; G R Cointry; J L Ferretti; R F Capozza
Journal:  Curr Osteoporos Rep       Date:  2018-12       Impact factor: 5.096

Review 9.  The paradox of Wolff's theories.

Authors:  A Hammer
Journal:  Ir J Med Sci       Date:  2014-01-29       Impact factor: 1.568

10.  Fractal analysis for the assessment of trabecular peri-implant alveolar bone using panoramic radiographs.

Authors:  Mert Zeytinoğlu; Betül İlhan; Nesrin Dündar; Hayal Boyacioğlu
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2014-05-07       Impact factor: 3.573

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.