Literature DB >> 20435503

Some factors that affect the comparison between isotropic and orthotropic inhomogeneous finite element material models of femur.

Haisheng Yang1, Xin Ma, Tongtong Guo.   

Abstract

The objective of this study was to investigate whether there were significant differences between isotropic and orthotropic inhomogeneous material models of femur by taking into account the effects of some factors, such as comparative parameters, loading conditions and mesh refinement. Three femoral meshes of increasing refinement levels were assigned isotropic and orthotropic material properties. Then six different loading conditions were separately applied to each material model. Based on the analysis results of Von Mises stress and nodal displacement, eight regions of interest in femur were selected to compare the differences between isotropic and orthotropic material models. The results showed that marked differences for Von Mises stress (maximum 13.25%) and nodal displacement (maximum 15.04%) appeared in the regions where the maximum absolute Von Mises stress and the maximum absolute nodal displacement did not occur. It was observed that the comparison results were significantly different under different loading cases. The mesh refinement had a great influence on the comparison results, especially for the Von Mises stresses in the regions of the femoral neck. Therefore, it can be concluded that the differences between two material property assignments are significant, at least in some local regions. Copyright 2010 IPEM. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20435503     DOI: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2010.01.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Eng Phys        ISSN: 1350-4533            Impact factor:   2.242


  8 in total

Review 1.  Computed tomography-based finite element analysis to assess fracture risk and osteoporosis treatment.

Authors:  Kazuhiro Imai
Journal:  World J Exp Med       Date:  2015-08-20

2.  Transversely isotropic and isotropic material considerations in determining the mechanical response of geometrically accurate bovine tibia bone.

Authors:  Reem A Yassine; Ramsey F Hamade
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2019-08-03       Impact factor: 2.602

3.  Biomechanical analysis of the wrist arthroplasty in rheumatoid arthritis: a finite element analysis.

Authors:  M N Bajuri; Mohammed Rafiq Abdul Kadir; Malliga Raman Murali; T Kamarul
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2012-11-03       Impact factor: 2.602

4.  A quasi-brittle continuum damage finite element model of the human proximal femur based on element deletion.

Authors:  Ridha Hambli
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2012-11-21       Impact factor: 2.602

5.  Influence of orthotropy on biomechanics of peri-implant bone in complete mandible model with full dentition.

Authors:  Xi Ding; Sheng-Hui Liao; Xing-Hao Zhu; Hui-Ming Wang
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2014-11-03       Impact factor: 3.411

6.  Validation of Material Algorithms for Femur Remodelling Using Medical Image Data.

Authors:  Shitong Luo; Xingquan Shen; Xin Bai; Jing Bai; Jianning Han; Yu Shang
Journal:  Appl Bionics Biomech       Date:  2017-12-26       Impact factor: 1.781

7.  Evaluating Pedicle-Screw Instrumentation Using Decision-Tree Analysis Based on Pullout Strength.

Authors:  Vicky Varghese; Venkatesh Krishnan; Gurunathan Saravana Kumar
Journal:  Asian Spine J       Date:  2018-07-27

8.  Is the 0.2%-Strain-Offset Approach Appropriate for Calculating the Yield Stress of Cortical Bone?

Authors:  Guanjun Zhang; Junjie Luo; Gang Zheng; Zhonghao Bai; Libo Cao; Haojie Mao
Journal:  Ann Biomed Eng       Date:  2021-01-21       Impact factor: 3.934

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.