Analysis of osteon morphotype scoring schemes for interpreting load history: evaluation in the chimpanzee femur.

Osteon morphotype scores (MTSs) allow for quantification of mechanically important collagen/lamellar variations between secondary osteons when viewed in circularly polarized ight (CPL). We recently modified the 6-point MTS method of Martin et al. (Martin RB, Gibson VA, Stover SM, Gibeling JC, Griffin LV (1996a) Osteonal structure in the equine third metacarpus. Bone 19, 165-71) and reported superiority of this modified method in correlating with 'tension' and 'compression' cortices of both chimpanzee proximal femoral diaphyses and diaphyses of other non-anthropoid bones that are loaded in habitual bending (Skedros et al. 2009, 2011). In these studies, the 'tension' and 'compression' cortices differed significantly in predominant collagen fiber orientation (CFO) based on weighted-mean gray levels (CFO/WMGLs) in CPL images. In chimpanzee femora, however, some osteons were difficult to score with the 6-point method; namely, 'hybrids' with peripherally bright 'hoops' and variability in alternating rings within the osteon wall. We hypothesized that some of these hybrids would be more prevalent in regions subject to torsion than bending. In this perspective the present study was aimed at expanding our 6-point scoring method (S-6-MTS) into two 12-point methods with six additional morphotypes that considered these hybrids. Three- and 4-point methods were also evaluated. We hypothesized that at least one of these other methods would out-perform the S-6-MTS in terms of accuracy, reliability, and interpreting torsion vs. bending load histories. Osteon morphotypes were quantified in CPL images from transverse sections of eight adult chimpanzee femora (neck, proximal diaphysis, mid-diaphysis), where the mid-diaphysis and base- and mid-neck locations have relatively more complex loading (e.g. torsion + bending) than the proximal diaphysis, where bending predominates. Correlation coefficients between CFO/WMGL and MTSs showed that the S-6-MTS method was either stronger or equivalent to the 12-point methods, and typically stronger than the 3- and 4-point methods for all load environments. In nearly all instances the S-6-MTS is more reliable and accurate when it is applied to cases where interpreting load history requires distinguishing habitual bending from torsion. Consequently, in studies of osteonal adaptations for these load histories the 3- and 4-point methods are not stronger correlates, and the extra time required to assign additional scores in the 12-point methods is both unnecessary and can be highly unreliable.