Literature DB >> 15121009

The degree of mineralization is a determinant of bone strength: a study on human calcanei.

H Follet1, G Boivin, C Rumelhart, P J Meunier.   

Abstract

Strength of bones depends on bone matrix volume (BMV), bone microarchitecture, and also on the degree of mineralization of bone (DMB). We have recently shown in osteoporotic patients treated with alendronate that fracture risk decreased and bone mineral density increased with a parallel increase of the DMB due to prolonged secondary mineralization but without modifications of BMV or bone microarchitecture. DMB and strength were both measured at the tissue level in calcaneus bone samples taken at autopsy from 20 subjects (aged 78 +/- 8 years, 8 women, 12 men) who died suddenly without apparent bone disease. DMB parameters measured on microradiographs (mean DMB, distribution of DMB, most frequent maximum DMB value, and width at half maximum, an index reflecting the homogeneity of DMB) were compared with those reported in iliac cancellous bone samples of 43 human bones. Histomorphometric measurements of microarchitectural parameters (TbTh, TbN, and TbSp) were also measured. Compression tests were performed on contiguous samples of the same calcaneus on a universal screw-driven machine (Schenck RSA 250). A 5000-N load cell (TME, F 501 TC) measured the compressive load. The displacement was measured directly on the sample using a specific displacement transducer developed by the <<Laboratoire de Mécanique des Contacts et des Solides (LaMCoS).>> The apparent Young's modulus (E), the maximal strength (sigma(max)), and the work (W) until failure were measured. In human cancellous bone tissue, mean DMB (+/- SD) was higher in calcaneus (1.135 +/- 0.147 g/cm(3)) than in iliac crest (1.098 +/- 0.077 g/cm(3)). The mean most frequent maximum DMB values (mean DMB freq. max.) were 1.118 +/- 0.175 g/cm(3) in calcaneus and 1.108 +/- 0.095 g/cm(3) in iliac samples, and DMB was more heterogeneous in calcaneus than in iliac samples (mean width at half maximum were 0.270 +/- 0.127 versus 0.227 +/- 0.056 g/cm(3), respectively). Compression tests revealed significant positive linear correlations between DMB and both elastic modulus (r(2) = 0.69) and maximal strength (r(2) = 0.69). Correlations with DMB persisted (P < 0.003) even after adjustment for both calcified bone volume, for the Young's modulus (E), the maximal strength (sigma(max)) (r(2) = 0.44 and 0.41, respectively), and microarchitectural parameters (0.50 < r(2) < 0.56, P < 0.001). The same results were obtained with the work to fracture (W) (0.23 < r(2) < 0.46, P < 0.045). We conclude that the more the cancellous tissue was mineralized, the higher was its stiffness and compressive strength. This may explain the increase in bone strength when DMB is modified in a physiological range without necessary changes of BMV and bone microarchitecture. The impact of such modifications on fracture risk and the therapeutic implications of these data remain to be analyzed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15121009     DOI: 10.1016/j.bone.2003.12.012

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Bone        ISSN: 1873-2763            Impact factor:   4.398


  72 in total

1.  Do regional modifications in tissue mineral content and microscopic mineralization heterogeneity adapt trabecular bone tracts for habitual bending? Analysis in the context of trabecular architecture of deer calcanei.

Authors:  John G Skedros; Alex N Knight; Ryan W Farnsworth; Roy D Bloebaum
Journal:  J Anat       Date:  2012-01-06       Impact factor: 2.610

Review 2.  Application of polychromatic µCT for mineral density determination.

Authors:  W Zou; N Hunter; M V Swain
Journal:  J Dent Res       Date:  2010-09-21       Impact factor: 6.116

Review 3.  A biomechanical perspective on bone quality.

Authors:  C J Hernandez; T M Keaveny
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2006-07-28       Impact factor: 4.398

Review 4.  Mineral changes in osteoporosis: a review.

Authors:  Dan Faibish; Susan M Ott; Adele L Boskey
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  Influence of remodeling on the mineralization of bone tissue.

Authors:  G Boivin; D Farlay; Y Bala; A Doublier; P J Meunier; P D Delmas
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 6.  Measuring bone quality.

Authors:  Elisa Torres-del-Pliego; Laia Vilaplana; Roberto Güerri-Fernández; Adolfo Diez-Pérez
Journal:  Curr Rheumatol Rep       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 4.592

Review 7.  How can bone turnover modify bone strength independent of bone mass?

Authors:  C J Hernandez
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2008-02-20       Impact factor: 4.398

Review 8.  Bone quality: the determinants of bone strength and fragility.

Authors:  Hélder Fonseca; Daniel Moreira-Gonçalves; Hans-Joachim Appell Coriolano; José Alberto Duarte
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 11.136

9.  C-reactive protein, bone strength, and nine-year fracture risk: data from the Study of Women's Health Across the Nation (SWAN).

Authors:  Shinya Ishii; Jane A Cauley; Gail A Greendale; Carolyn J Crandall; Michelle E Danielson; Yasuyoshi Ouchi; Arun S Karlamangla
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 6.741

10.  The degree of bone mineralization is maintained with single intravenous bisphosphonates in aged estrogen-deficient rats and is a strong predictor of bone strength.

Authors:  Wei Yao; Zhiqiang Cheng; Kurt J Koester; Joel W Ager; Mehdi Balooch; Aaron Pham; Solomon Chefo; Cheryl Busse; Robert O Ritchie; Nancy E Lane
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2007-07-10       Impact factor: 4.398

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.