Literature DB >> 25455607

Variability in reference point microindentation and recommendations for testing cortical bone: maximum load, sample orientation, mode of use, sample preparation and measurement spacing.

T Jenkins1, L V Coutts1, D G Dunlop2, R O C Oreffo3, C Cooper4, N C Harvey5, P J Thurner6.   

Abstract

Reference Point Indentation (RPI) is a novel microindentation tool that has emerging clinical potential for the assessment of fracture risk as well as use as a laboratory tool for straight-forward mechanical characterisation of bone. Despite increasing use of the tool, little research is available to advise the set-up of testing protocols or optimisation of testing parameters. Here we consider five such parameters: maximum load, sample orientation, mode of use, sample preparation and measurement spacing, to investigate how they affect the Indentation Distance Increase (IDI), the most published measurement parameter associated with the RPI device. The RPI tool was applied to bovine bone; indenting in the proximal midshaft of five femora and human bone; indenting five femoral heads and five femoral neck samples. Based on the findings of these studies we recommend the following as the best practice. (1) Repeat measurements should be utilised to reduce the coefficient of variation (e.g. 8-15 repeats to achieve a 5-10% error, however the 3-5 measurements used here gives a 15-20% error). (2) IDI is dependent on maximum load (r=0.45 on the periosteal surface and r=0.94 on the machined surface, p<0.05), mode of use (i.e. comparing the device held freehand compared to fixed in its stand, p=0.04) and surface preparation (p=0.004) so these should be kept consistent throughout testing. Though sample orientation appears to have minimal influence on IDI (p>0.05), care should also be taken in combining measurements from different orientations. (3) The coefficient of variation is higher (p=0.04) when holding the device freehand, so it should ideally be kept supported in its stand. (4) Removing the periosteum (p=0.04) and machining the surface of the bone (p=0.08) reduces the coefficient of variation, so should be performed where practical. (5) There is a hyperbolic relationship between thickness and IDI (p<0.001) with a sample thickness 10 fold greater than the maximum indentation depth recommended, to ensure a representative measurement. (6) Measurement spacing does not appear to influence the IDI (p>0.05), so it can be as low as 500 µm. By following these recommendations, RPI users can minimise the potential confounding effects associated with the variables investigated here and reduce the coefficient of variation, hence achieving more consistent testing. This optimisation of the technique enhances both the clinical and laboratory potential of the tool.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bone; Bone quality; Femur; Microindentation; Reference Point Indentation

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25455607     DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2014.09.030

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Mech Behav Biomed Mater        ISSN: 1878-0180


  6 in total

1.  Determination of Elastic Modulus in Mouse Bones Using a Nondestructive Micro-Indentation Technique Using Reference Point Indentation.

Authors:  Ganesh Thiagarajan; Mark T Begonia; Mark Dallas; Nuria Lara-Castillo; JoAnna M Scott; Mark L Johnson
Journal:  J Biomech Eng       Date:  2018-07-01       Impact factor: 2.097

2.  Age-related changes in the fracture resistance of male Fischer F344 rat bone.

Authors:  Sasidhar Uppuganti; Mathilde Granke; Alexander J Makowski; Mark D Does; Jeffry S Nyman
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2015-11-22       Impact factor: 4.398

Review 3.  True Gold or Pyrite: A Review of Reference Point Indentation for Assessing Bone Mechanical Properties In Vivo.

Authors:  Matthew R Allen; Erin Mb McNerny; Jason M Organ; Joseph M Wallace
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2015-08-06       Impact factor: 6.741

4.  Differences in sensitivity to microstructure between cyclic- and impact-based microindentation of human cortical bone.

Authors:  Sasidhar Uppuganti; Mathilde Granke; Mary Kate Manhard; Mark D Does; Daniel S Perrien; Donald H Lee; Jeffry S Nyman
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2016-10-04       Impact factor: 3.494

5.  The inferomedial femoral neck is compromised by age but not disease: Fracture toughness and the multifactorial mechanisms comprising reference point microindentation.

Authors:  T Jenkins; O L Katsamenis; O G Andriotis; L V Coutts; B Carter; D G Dunlop; R O C Oreffo; C Cooper; N C Harvey; P J Thurner
Journal:  J Mech Behav Biomed Mater       Date:  2017-06-30

Review 6.  Methods for bone quality assessment in human bone tissue: a systematic review.

Authors:  Fangxing Wang; Leyu Zheng; Jan Theopold; Stefan Schleifenbaum; Christoph-Eckhard Heyde; Georg Osterhoff
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2022-03-21       Impact factor: 2.359

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.