Eve Donnelly1. 1. Mineralized Tissues Laboratory, Hospital for Special Surgery, 535 East 70th Street, New York, NY, 10021, USA, donnellye@hss.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bone mass, geometry, and tissue material properties contribute to bone structural integrity. Thus, bone strength arises from both bone quantity and quality. Bone quality encompasses the geometric and material factors that contribute to fracture resistance. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: This review presents an overview of the methods for assessing bone quality across multiple length scales, their outcomes, and their relative advantages and disadvantages. METHODS: A PubMed search was conducted to identify methods related to bone mechanical testing, imaging, and compositional analysis. Using various exclusion criteria, articles were selected for inclusion. RESULTS: Methods for assessing mechanical properties include whole-bone, bulk tissue, microbeam, and micro- and nanoindentation testing techniques. Outcomes include structural strength and material modulus. Advantages include direct assessment of bone strength; disadvantages include specimen destruction during testing. Methods for characterizing bone geometry and microarchitecture include quantitative CT, high-resolution peripheral quantitative CT, high-resolution MRI, and micro-CT. Outcomes include three-dimensional whole-bone geometry, trabecular morphology, and tissue mineral density. The primary advantage is the ability to image noninvasively; disadvantages include the lack of a direct measure of bone strength. Methods for measuring tissue composition include scanning electron microscopy, vibrational spectroscopy, nuclear magnetic resonance imaging, and chemical and physical analytical techniques. Outcomes include mineral density and crystallinity, elemental composition, and collagen crosslink composition. Advantages include the detailed material characterization; disadvantages include the need for a biopsy. CONCLUSIONS: Although no single method can completely characterize bone quality, current noninvasive imaging techniques can be combined with ex vivo mechanical and compositional techniques to provide a comprehensive understanding of bone quality.
BACKGROUND: Bone mass, geometry, and tissue material properties contribute to bone structural integrity. Thus, bone strength arises from both bone quantity and quality. Bone quality encompasses the geometric and material factors that contribute to fracture resistance. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: This review presents an overview of the methods for assessing bone quality across multiple length scales, their outcomes, and their relative advantages and disadvantages. METHODS: A PubMed search was conducted to identify methods related to bone mechanical testing, imaging, and compositional analysis. Using various exclusion criteria, articles were selected for inclusion. RESULTS: Methods for assessing mechanical properties include whole-bone, bulk tissue, microbeam, and micro- and nanoindentation testing techniques. Outcomes include structural strength and material modulus. Advantages include direct assessment of bone strength; disadvantages include specimen destruction during testing. Methods for characterizing bone geometry and microarchitecture include quantitative CT, high-resolution peripheral quantitative CT, high-resolution MRI, and micro-CT. Outcomes include three-dimensional whole-bone geometry, trabecular morphology, and tissue mineral density. The primary advantage is the ability to image noninvasively; disadvantages include the lack of a direct measure of bone strength. Methods for measuring tissue composition include scanning electron microscopy, vibrational spectroscopy, nuclear magnetic resonance imaging, and chemical and physical analytical techniques. Outcomes include mineral density and crystallinity, elemental composition, and collagen crosslink composition. Advantages include the detailed material characterization; disadvantages include the need for a biopsy. CONCLUSIONS: Although no single method can completely characterize bone quality, current noninvasive imaging techniques can be combined with ex vivo mechanical and compositional techniques to provide a comprehensive understanding of bone quality.
Authors: Y Wu; D A Chesler; M J Glimcher; L Garrido; J Wang; H J Jiang; J L Ackerman Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 1999-02-16 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: N P Camacho; L Hou; T R Toledano; W A Ilg; C F Brayton; C L Raggio; L Root; A L Boskey Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 1999-02 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Liisa T Kuhn; Marc D Grynpas; Christian C Rey; Yaotang Wu; Jerome L Ackerman; Melvin J Glimcher Journal: Calcif Tissue Int Date: 2008-08-07 Impact factor: 4.333
Authors: Elise F Morgan; Zachary D Mason; Karen B Chien; Anthony J Pfeiffer; George L Barnes; Thomas A Einhorn; Louis C Gerstenfeld Journal: Bone Date: 2008-10-25 Impact factor: 4.398
Authors: Christopher M McAndrew; Avinesh Agarwalla; Adam C Abraham; Eric Feuchtbaum; William M Ricci; Simon Y Tang Journal: Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) Date: 2018-02-03 Impact factor: 2.063
Authors: Maya Styner; Gabriel M Pagnotti; Cody McGrath; Xin Wu; Buer Sen; Gunes Uzer; Zhihui Xie; Xiaopeng Zong; Martin A Styner; Clinton T Rubin; Janet Rubin Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2017-05-04 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Paul I Okagbare; Dana Begun; Mary Tecklenburg; Ayorinde Awonusi; Steven A Goldstein; Michael D Morris Journal: J Biomed Opt Date: 2012-09 Impact factor: 3.170
Authors: Hélder Fonseca; Daniel Moreira-Gonçalves; Hans-Joachim Appell Coriolano; José Alberto Duarte Journal: Sports Med Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: Do-Gyoon Kim; Yong-Hoon Jeong; Erin Kosel; Amanda M Agnew; David W McComb; Kyle Bodnyk; Richard T Hart; Min Kyung Kim; Sang Yeun Han; William M Johnston Journal: Bone Date: 2015-04-22 Impact factor: 4.398