| Literature DB >> 26042089 |
Yuchin Wu1, Samer Adeeb2, Michael R Doschak3.
Abstract
Micro-computed tomography (Micro-CT) images can be used to quantitatively represent bone geometry through a range of computed attenuation-based parameters. Nonetheless, those parameters remain indirect indices of bone microarchitectural strength and require further computational tools to interpret bone structural stiffness and potential for mechanical failure. Finite element analysis (FEA) can be applied to measure trabecular bone stiffness and potentially predict the location of structural failure in preclinical animal models of osteoporosis, although that procedure from image segmentation of Micro-CT derived bone geometry to FEA is often challenging and computationally expensive, resulting in failure of the model to build. Notably, the selection of resolution and threshold for bone segmentation are key steps that greatly affect computational complexity and validity. In the following study, we evaluated an approach whereby Micro-CT derived grayscale attenuation and segmentation data guided the selection of trabecular bone for analysis by FEA. We further correlated those FEA results to both two- and three-dimensional bone microarchitecture from sham and ovariectomized (OVX) rats (n = 10/group). A virtual cylinder of vertebral trabecular bone 40% in length from the caudal side was selected for FEA, because Micro-CT based image analysis indicated the largest differences in microarchitecture between the two groups resided there. Bone stiffness was calculated using FEA and statistically correlated with the three-dimensional values of bone volume/tissue volume, bone mineral density, fractal dimension, trabecular separation, and trabecular bone pattern factor. Our method simplified the process for the assessment of trabecular bone stiffness by FEA from Micro-CT images and highlighted the importance of bone microarchitecture in conferring significantly increased bone quality capable of resisting failure due to increased mechanical loading.Entities:
Keywords: bone stiffness; finite element analysis; micro-computed tomography; microstructural parameters
Year: 2015 PMID: 26042089 PMCID: PMC4438594 DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2015.00080
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) ISSN: 1664-2392 Impact factor: 5.555
Figure 1Steps for calculating stiffness of trabecular bone cylinder of rat vertebra.
Figure 2Calculations of the index of stiffness (k/k′).
3D structure parameters of rat lumbar vertebrae calculated from Micro-CT images.
| Treatment | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OP-Sham | OP-OVX | ||||||||
| L4 | L5 | L6 | Total | L4 | L5 | L6 | Total | ||
| ( | ( | ( | ( | ( | ( | ( | ( | ||
| BV/TV (%) | Mean | 34.3 | 32.8 | 39.0 | 35.4 | 20.0 | 23.3 | 26.7 | 23.3 |
| SD | 5.4 | 7.5 | 5.3 | 6.5 | 3.8 | 3.3 | 3.1 | 4.3 | |
| BMD (g/cm3) | Mean | 0.207 | 0.251 | 0.304 | 0.254 | 0.066 | 0.157 | 0.239 | 0.154 |
| SD | 0.035 | 0.069 | 0.075 | 0.072 | 0.024 | 0.062 | 0.060 | 0.088 | |
| Tb.Th (mm) | Mean | 0.104 | 0.104 | 0.114 | 0.108 | 0.106 | 0.109 | 0.114 | 0.110 |
| SD | 0.006 | 0.010 | 0.006 | 0.009 | 0.004 | 0.004 | 0.004 | 0.005 | |
| Tb.Sp (mm) | Mean | 0.242 | 0.251 | 0.264 | 0.252 | 0.410 | 0.384 | 0.367 | 0.387 |
| SD | 0.015 | 0.019 | 0.025 | 0.022 | 0.078 | 0.063 | 0.047 | 0.064 | |
| FD | Mean | 2.40 | 2.38 | 2.43 | 2.40 | 2.23 | 2.27 | 2.31 | 2.27 |
| SD | 0.05 | 0.10 | 0.04 | 0.07 | 0.05 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.05 | |
| Tb.Pf (1/mm) | Mean | −1.53 | −0.54 | −3.54 | −1.87 | 5.46 | 4.02 | 2.60 | 4.03 |
| SD | 2.84 | 4.85 | 2.57 | 3.67 | 1.81 | 1.16 | 1.34 | 1.85 | |
| DA | Mean | 0.806 | 0.777 | 0.585 | 0.723 | 0.901 | 0.815 | 0.702 | 0.806 |
| SD | 0.099 | 0.103 | 0.135 | 0.148 | 0.061 | 0.101 | 0.088 | 0.117 | |
| Conn.Dn (1/mm3) | Mean | 84.6 | 87.1 | 69.0 | 80.2 | 38.5 | 40.6 | 45.4 | 41.5 |
| SD | 15.0 | 17.8 | 7.3 | 15.9 | 8.3 | 5.4 | 6.2 | 7.1 | |
Data expressed as mean and SD.
.
.
.
.
BV/TV, bone volume/tissue volume; BMD, bone mineral density; Tb.Th, trabecular thickness; Tb.Sp, trabecular separation; FD, fractal dimension; Tb.Pf, trabecular bone pattern factor; DA, degree of anisotropy; Conn.Dn, connectivity density.
Figure 32D structural parameters, BV/TV(%), Tb.Pf(1/mm), FD, Tb.Sp(mm), BMD(g/cm. x-axis was normalized by the height of each vertebral body (trabecular cylinder) (x-axis: Caudal to Cranial; 0–1).
Figure 4Difference of 2D Micro-CT structure parameters between OP-Sham and OP-OVX-Vehicle. The maximum difference of Tb.Sp is in the middle of the vertebra. All other curves show the minimum difference in the middle right of the vertebra body.
3D structural parameters and index of stiffness of the 4/10 length L4.
| Treatment | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OP-Sham | OP-OVX | |||||
| L4 ( | L4 ( | |||||
| BV/TV (%) | Mean | 41.7 | 0.934 | 23.1 | 0.965 | |
| SD | Sig. | 7.2 | 0.000 | 5.2 | 0.000 | |
| BMD (g/cm3) | Mean | 0.248 | 0.674 | 0.083 | 0.954 | |
| SD | Sig. | 0.032 | 0.032 | 0.030 | 0.000 | |
| Tb.Th.(mm) | Mean | 0.102 | 0.817 | 0.103 | 0.726 | |
| SD | Sig. | 0.006 | 0.004 | 0.005 | 0.018 | |
| Tb.Sp.(mm) | Mean | 0.166 | -0.838 | 0.341 | −0.784 | |
| SD | Sig. | 0.013 | 0.002 | 0.166 | 0.007 | |
| FD | Mean | 2.48 | 0.928 | 2.26 | 0.948 | |
| SD | Sig. | 0.06 | 0.000 | 0.06 | 0.000 | |
| Tb.Pf (1/mm) | Mean | −4.00 | −0.956 | 5.46 | -0.965 | |
| SD | Sig. | 4.08 | 0.000 | 2.48 | 0.000 | |
| DA | Mean | 0.557 | 0.238 | 0.525 | 0.502 | |
| SD | Sig. | 0.044 | 0.508 | 0.056 | 0.139 | |
| Conn.Dn (1/mm3) | Mean | 131.6 | 0.542 | 55.2 | 0.648 | |
| SD | Sig. | 23.8 | 0.105 | 13.7 | 0.043 | |
| k/k′ | Mean | 0.383 | 1 | 0.141 | 1 | |
| SD | Sig. | 0.092 | 0.053 | |||
Data expressed as mean and SD.
.
The significant level of Pearson’s correlation coefficient (.
BV/TV, bone volume/tissue volume; BMD, bone mineral density; Tb.Th, trabecular thickness; Tb.Sp, trabecular separation; FD, fractal dimension; Tb.Pf, trabecular bone pattern factor; DA, degree of anisotropy; Conn.Dn, connectivity density; k/k′, normalized stiffness value.