Literature DB >> 29243252

Predicting calvarial growth in normal and craniosynostotic mice using a computational approach.

Arsalan Marghoub1, Joseph Libby2, Christian Babbs3, Erwin Pauws4, Michael J Fagan2, Mehran Moazen1.   

Abstract

During postnatal calvarial growth the brain grows gradually and the overlying bones and sutures accommodate that growth until the later juvenile stages. The whole process is coordinated through a complex series of biological, chemical and perhaps mechanical signals between various elements of the craniofacial system. The aim of this study was to investigate to what extent a computational model can accurately predict the calvarial growth in wild-type (WT) and mutant type (MT) Fgfr2C342Y/+ mice displaying bicoronal suture fusion. A series of morphological studies were carried out to quantify the calvarial growth at P3, P10 and P20 in both mouse types. MicroCT images of a P3 specimen were used to develop a finite element model of skull growth to predict the calvarial shape of WT and MT mice at P10. Sensitivity tests were performed and the results compared with ex vivo P10 data. Although the models were sensitive to the choice of input parameters, they predicted the overall skull growth in the WT and MT mice. The models also captured the difference between the ex vivoWT and MT mice. This modelling approach has the potential to be translated to human skull growth and to enhance our understanding of the different reconstruction methods used to manage clinically the different forms of craniosynostosis, and in the long term possibly reduce the number of re-operations in children displaying this condition and thereby enhance their quality of life.
© 2017 Anatomical Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  biomechanics; calvarial bones; craniosynostosis; development; finite element method; sutures

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29243252      PMCID: PMC5807955          DOI: 10.1111/joa.12764

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Anat        ISSN: 0021-8782            Impact factor:   2.610


  40 in total

1.  Are in vivo and in situ brain tissues mechanically similar?

Authors:  Amit Gefen; Susan S Margulies
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 2.712

Review 2.  Editorial: perspectives on craniosynostosis.

Authors:  M Michael Cohen
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2005-08-01       Impact factor: 2.802

3.  Mechanical properties of dura mater from the rat brain and spinal cord.

Authors:  Jason T Maikos; Ragi A I Elias; David I Shreiber
Journal:  J Neurotrauma       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 5.269

Review 4.  The role of vertebrate models in understanding craniosynostosis.

Authors:  Greg Holmes
Journal:  Childs Nerv Syst       Date:  2012-08-08       Impact factor: 1.475

5.  Increase of prevalence of craniosynostosis.

Authors:  Martijn Cornelissen; Bianca den Ottelander; Dimitris Rizopoulos; René van der Hulst; Aebele Mink van der Molen; Chantal van der Horst; Hans Delye; Marie-Lise van Veelen; Gouke Bonsel; Irene Mathijssen
Journal:  J Craniomaxillofac Surg       Date:  2016-07-12       Impact factor: 2.078

Review 6.  Craniosynostosis: genes and mechanisms.

Authors:  A O Wilkie
Journal:  Hum Mol Genet       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 6.150

7.  A population-based study of craniosynostosis in metropolitan Atlanta, 1989-2003.

Authors:  Sheree L Boulet; Sonja A Rasmussen; Margaret A Honein
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2008-04-15       Impact factor: 2.802

8.  Modeling and biomechanical analysis of craniosynostosis correction with the use of finite element method.

Authors:  Wojciech Wolański; Dawid Larysz; Marek Gzik; Edyta Kawlewska
Journal:  Int J Numer Method Biomed Eng       Date:  2012-08-02       Impact factor: 2.747

9.  The increase of metopic synostosis: a pan-European observation.

Authors:  Jacques van der Meulen; Rene van der Hulst; Leon van Adrichem; Eric Arnaud; David Chin-Shong; Christian Duncan; Edith Habets; Jose Hinojosa; Irene Mathijssen; Paul May; Daniel Morritt; Hiroshi Nishikawa; Peter Noons; David Richardson; Steve Wall; Joris van der Vlugt; Dominique Renier
Journal:  J Craniofac Surg       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 1.046

10.  Validity and sensitivity of a human cranial finite element model: implications for comparative studies of biting performance.

Authors:  Viviana Toro-Ibacache; Laura C Fitton; Michael J Fagan; Paul O'Higgins
Journal:  J Anat       Date:  2015-09-23       Impact factor: 2.610

View more
  6 in total

1.  Predicting and comparing three corrective techniques for sagittal craniosynostosis.

Authors:  Connor Cross; Roman H Khonsari; Dawid Larysz; David Johnson; Lars Kölby; Mehran Moazen
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-10-27       Impact factor: 4.379

2.  A Computational Framework to Predict Calvarial Growth: Optimising Management of Sagittal Craniosynostosis.

Authors:  Connor Cross; Roman H Khonsari; Giovanna Patermoster; Eric Arnaud; Dawid Larysz; Lars Kölby; David Johnson; Yiannis Ventikos; Mehran Moazen
Journal:  Front Bioeng Biotechnol       Date:  2022-05-24

3.  Mechanical loading of cranial joints minimizes the craniofacial phenotype in Crouzon syndrome.

Authors:  Mehran Moazen; Mahbubeh Hejazi; Dawn Savery; Dominic Jones; Arsalan Marghoub; Ali Alazmani; Erwin Pauws
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-06-11       Impact factor: 4.996

Review 4.  Extracellular Matrix in Human Craniofacial Development.

Authors:  D A Cruz Walma; K M Yamada
Journal:  J Dent Res       Date:  2021-12-07       Impact factor: 8.924

5.  Trans-pairing between osteoclasts and osteoblasts shapes the cranial base during development.

Authors:  Mio Edamoto; Yukiko Kuroda; Masaki Yoda; Katsuhiro Kawaai; Koichi Matsuo
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-02-13       Impact factor: 4.379

Review 6.  Mouse embryo phenotyping using X-ray microCT.

Authors:  Stephan Handschuh; Martin Glösmann
Journal:  Front Cell Dev Biol       Date:  2022-09-16
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.