| Literature DB >> 24046532 |
Jiazi Gao1, He Gong, Xing Huang, Juan Fang, Dong Zhu, Yubo Fan.
Abstract
The aim of <span class="Chemical">this study was to investigate the relationship between microstructural parameters, material distribution, and mechanical properties of sheep tibia at the apparent and tissue levels during the fracture healing process. Eighteen sheep underwent tibial osteotomy and were sacrificed at 4, 8, and 12 weeks. Radiographs and micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) scanning were taken for microstructural assessment, material distribution evaluation, and micro-finite element analysis. A displacement of 5% compressive strain on the longitudinal direction was applied to the micro-finite element model, and apparent and tissue-level mechanical properties were calculated. Principle component analysis and linear regression were used to establish the relationship between principle components (PCs) and mechanical parameters. Visible bony callus formation was observed throughout the healing process from radiographic assessment. Apparent mechanical property increased at 8 weeks, but tissue-level mechanical property did not increase significantly until 12 weeks. Three PCs were extracted from microstructural parameters and material distribution, which accounted for 87.592% of the total variation. The regression results showed a significant relationship between PCs and mechanical parameters (R>0.8, P<0.05). Results of this study show that microstructure and material distribution based on micro-CT imaging could efficiently predict bone strength and reflect the bone remodeling process during fracture healing, which provides a basis for exploring the fracture healing mechanism and may be used as an approach for fractured bone strength assessment.Entities:
Keywords: Fracture healing process; Material distribution; Mechanical properties.; Microstructure; Tibia
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24046532 PMCID: PMC3775115 DOI: 10.7150/ijms.6611
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Med Sci ISSN: 1449-1907 Impact factor: 3.738
Experimental design and sample size.
| Groups | Sample size | Time point for sacrifice |
|---|---|---|
| W4 | 7 | 4 weeks postoperatively |
| W8 | 4 | 8 weeks postoperatively |
| W12 | 7 | 12 weeks postoperatively |
Fig 1Radiograph and corresponding longitudinal cut-away view of each stage. (Grade A: Bridging; Grade B: Bridged; Grade C: Fully bridged).
Fig 2Region for microstructural evaluation and μFEA. (A - Callus without plate and the region for μFEA (between the two holes across the fracture gap); B - 3D region for qualitative evaluation of callus, which was built from 2D micro-CT images; C - μFE model and boundary conditions).
Percentages of each grade at different time points.
| Groups | A% | B% | C% |
|---|---|---|---|
| W4 | 42.86 | 57.14 | 0.00 |
| W8 | 0.00 | 75.00 | 25.00 |
| W12 | 0.00 | 28.57 | 71.43 |
Fig 3Typical 3D microstructures of calluses at different time points. Model size: Height 7 mm, Diameter 8.5 mm (median). (A - Group W4; B - Group W8; C - Group W12).
Fig 4A typical ROI of calluses on a 2D micro-CT image from group W8 (regions of internal and external calluses were drawn by blue lines)
Microstructural parameters of calluses (median).
| Goups | BMD (g/cm3) | BV/TV (%) | Tb.Th (mm) | Tb.N (1/mm) | Tb.Sp (mm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| W4 | 0.6752 | 51.65 | 0.1843 | 2.8210 | 0.1925 |
| W8 | 0.8202 | 58.37 | 0.1990 | 2.9524 | 0.2266 |
| W12 | 0.8273* | 58.98 | 0.2168* | 2.8516 | 0.2400* |
*Significantly different to group W4 (P<0.05).
Apparent and tissue-level mechanical parameters (median).
| Groups | E% | Tissue average von Mises stress (MPa) |
|---|---|---|
| W4 | 13.6639 | 48.3011 |
| W8 | 26.8511 | 65.5060 |
| W12 | 31.6736* | 155.8331* |
*Significantly different to group W4 (P<0.05).
Fig 5Typical sketch of material distribution of fractured bone and untreated control bone from group W12. (Red bar for fractured bone and blue for untreated control bone).
Fig 6Comparisons of bony material distribution between fractured bones and untreated bones at the same time point (median). (A - 4 weeks postoperatively; B - 8 weeks postoperatively; C - 12 week postoperatively). * Significant difference.
Fig 7Comparisons of material distribution of fractured bones at different time points. * Significant difference between groups W8 and W4; # Significant difference between groups W12 and W4
Total variance explained.
| PCs | Eigenvalue | % of variance | Cumulative % of variance |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 4.743 | 43.116 | 43.116 |
| 2 | 3.180 | 28.906 | 72.022 |
| 3 | 1.713 | 15.570 | 87.592 |
Component matrix.
| Components | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PC1 | PC2 | PC3 | ||
| Bony material distribution | 1 | -0.523 | -0.397 | |
| 2 | 0.424 | -0.022 | ||
| 4 | -0.145 | 0.244 | ||
| 8 | 0.559 | 0.201 | ||
| 12 | -0.631 | 0.051 | ||
| 16 | 0.602 | -0.002 | ||
| Microstructural parameters | BMD | -0.375 | 0.492 | |
| Tb.N | -0.209 | -0.522 | ||
| Tb.Th | 0.493 | -0.338 | ||
| Tb.Sp | 0.341 | -0.413 | ||
| BV/TV | 0.061 | 0.524 | ||
The highest weights are marked in bold indicated stronger association with the principal component.