| Literature DB >> 29662776 |
Ming Ding1, Xiaozhe Lin2, Wenge Liu3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/Entities:
Keywords: Adolescence; Microarchitectural properties; Trabecular plate; Trabecular rod; Volumetric spatial decomposition
Year: 2017 PMID: 29662776 PMCID: PMC5866498 DOI: 10.1016/j.jot.2017.10.001
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Orthop Translat ISSN: 2214-031X Impact factor: 5.191
Figure 1Study design. Cancellous bone samples were obtained beneath the thin layer of the subchondral plate and above the growth plate by using plastic template, which was available in different scales [1]. Four cubic specimens with dimensions of 8 × 8 × 8 mm3 were sawed out, two from each medial and lateral condyles of each 23 human normal proximal tibia. Three-dimensional reconstruction of cancellous bone is displayed at the right side of lower corner, and volumetric spatial decomposition of trabeculae is illustrated at the middle and left sides of lower panel. Orientations of the sample are indicated. To investigate possible differences, the samples were divided into three groups: adolescents (9–17 years), young adults (18–24 years) and adults (25–30 years). These samples were scanned using micro-CT, and volumetric spatial decomposition was performed to quantify rod- and plate-like trabeculae and related properties. Stepwise multiple linear regressions were performed to determine the best predictor for mechanical properties as dependent variables, and all measured global microarchitectural properties, local morphometric properties and physical and compositional properties as independent (explanatory) variables. Regression analyses were further performed to determine the best predictor for mechanical properties independent of bone mineral density. AP = anterior–posterior; CC = cephalocaudal; CT = computed tomography; ML = medial–lateral.
Comparison of rod- and plate-like trabeculae of proximal tibial condyles among three age groups (mean ± SD, 276 samples from n = 23 tibiae).
| Local morphometry | Adolescents (g1, 9–17 y, n = 6) | Young adults (g2, 18–24 y, n = 9) | Adults (g3, 25–30 y, n = 8) | One-way ANOVA for three groups | Difference between groups |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ro.BV/TV (%) | 4.18 ± 1.48 | 3.96 ± 1.16 | 4.13 ± 0.86 | p = 0.926 | |
| Pl.BV/TV (%) | 15.84 ± 3.36 | 17.30 ± 3.70 | 18.93 ± 1.38 | p = 0.182 | |
| Ro.BV/BV (%) | 23.5 ± 9.1 | 22.6 ± 8.8 | 20.5 ± 3.48 | p = 0.714 | |
| Pl.BV/BV (%) | 76.5 ± 9.1 | 77.4 ± 8.8 | 79.5 ± 3.5 | p = 0.714 | |
| 〈Ro.V〉 (103 μm3) | 4.33 ± 0.73 | 3.57 ± 1.42 | 4.14 ± 0.80 | p = 0.302 | |
| 〈Ro.S〉 (103 μm2) | 190.1 ± 20.9 | 157.6 ± 40.7 | 181.1 ± 27.3 | p = 0.146 | |
| 〈Ro.Th〉 (μm) | 82.1 ± 5.9 | 72.6 ± 8.7 | 81.0 ± 7.7 | p = 0.043 | |
| 〈Ro.θ〉 (rad) | 59.0 ± 0.54 | 60.1 ± 1.00 | 58.4 ± 1.36 | p = 0.013 | g2 > g3 |
| 〈Ro.Le〉 (μm) | 212.6 ± 18.7 | 173.9 ± 29.4 | 195.2 ± 24.3 | p = 0.027 | g1 > g2 |
| 〈Pl.V〉 (103 μm3) | 31.9 ± 10.6 | 23.8 ± 13.7 | 37.3 ± 18.6 | p = 0.199 | |
| 〈Pl.S〉 (103 μm2) | 757.7 ± 215.7 | 600.2 ± 317.0 | 865.2 ± 358.1 | p = 0.234 | |
| 〈Pl.Th〉 (μm) | 70.9 ± 4.1 | 63.4 ± 7.7 | 74.5 ± 17.3 | p = 0.156 | |
| 〈Pl.θ〉 (rad) | 62.0 ± 2.7 | 61.9 ± 1.4 | 63.0 ± 0.6 | p = 0.356 | |
| 〈Pl.Le〉 (μm) | 217.7 ± 35.9 | 179.0 ± 46.2 | 222.1 ± 62.9 | p = 0.187 |
Pl.BV/BV = relative bone volume fraction of plates; Pl.BV/TV = plate volume density; 〈Pl.Le〉 = mean longitudinal length of plates; 〈Pl.S〉 = mean surface of plates; 〈Pl.Th〉 = mean thickness of plates; 〈Pl.V〉 = mean volume of plates; 〈Pl.θ〉 = mean orientation of plates; Ro.BV/BV = relative bone volume fraction of rods; Ro.BV/TV = rod volume density; 〈Ro.Le〉 = mean longitudinal length of rods; 〈Ro.S〉 = mean surface of rods; 〈Ro.Th〉 = mean thickness of rods; 〈Ro.V〉 = mean volume of rods; 〈Ro.θ〉 = mean orientation of rods.
Figure 2Three-dimensional reconstructions of micro-CT images for selected samples with different ages. Differences in the microarchitecture are illustrated in the panel (A), volumetric spatial decomposition of trabeculae is shown in the panel (B), with further focus on the three-dimensional reconstruction of 10 slices in the panel (C). Orientations of the sample are indicated. AP = anterior–posterior; CC = cephalocaudal; CT = computed tomography; ML = medial–lateral.
Comparison of rod- and plate-like trabeculae between the medial and the lateral tibial condyles (mean ± SD, 276 samples from n = 23 tibiae).
| Local morphometry | Adolescents (g1, 9–17 y, n = 6) | Young adults (g2, 18–24 y, n = 9) | Adults (g3, 25–30 y, n = 8) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Medial | Lateral | Medial vs. lateral | Medial | Lateral | Medial vs. lateral | Medial | Lateral | Medial vs. lateral | |
| Ro.BV/TV (%) | 3.68 ± 1.45 | 4.69 ± 1.60 | p = 0.019 | 3.70 ± 0.81 | 4.82 ± 1.80 | p = 0.006 | 3.71 ± 1.18 | 4.49 ± 1.06 | p = 0.067 |
| Pl.BV/TV (%) | 17.77 ± 4.45 | 13.90 ± 3.13 | p = 0.053 | 18.46 ± 3.92 | 16.65 ± 7.58 | p = 0.632 | 21.27 ± 4.67 | 16.30 ± 5.12 | p = 0.095 |
| Ro.BV/BV (%) | 19.37 ± 9.66 | 27.42 ± 9.49 | p = 0.014 | 18.43 ± 5.91 | 26.99 ± 13.9 | p = 0.053 | 19.99 ± 6.58 | 24.79 ± 7.82 | p = 0.050 |
| Pl.BV/BV (%) | 80.63 ± 9.66 | 72.58 ± 9.49 | p = 0.014 | 81.57 ± 5.91 | 73.01 ± 13.9 | p = 0.053 | 84.01 ± 6.58 | 75.21 ± 7.82 | p = 0.050 |
| 〈Ro.V〉 (103 μm3) | 4.43 ± 0.85 | 4.43 ± 0.89 | p = 0.988 | 3.52 ± 1.59 | 3.63 ± 1.33 | p = 0.682 | 3.98 ± 0.93 | 4.31 ± 0.77 | p = 0.172 |
| 〈Ro.S〉 (103 μm2) | 189.4 ± 25.1 | 190.7 ± 25.9 | p = 0.920 | 155.6 ± 49.8 | 159.9 ± 34.9 | p = 0.659 | 175.4 ± 32.8 | 186.9 ± 25.1 | p = 0.151 |
| 〈Ro.Th〉 (μm) | 81.7 ± 7.2 | 82.5 ± 6.8 | p = 0.793 | 71.8 ± 1.1 | 73.5 ± 7.2 | p = 0.547 | 79.0 ± 9.3 | 83.1 ± 7.3 | p = 0.110 |
| 〈Ro.θ〉 (rad) | 59.6 ± 0.87 | 58.5 ± 0.89 | p = 0.112 | 60.3 ± 1.30 | 58.9 ± 0.90 | p = 0.283 | 58.5 ± 1.4 | 58.3 ± 1.37 | p = 0.492 |
| 〈Ro.Le〉 (μm) | 205.4 ± 27.2 | 219.5 ± 21.7 | p = 0.328 | 170.2 ± 39.9 | 177.9 ± 29.7 | p = 0.565 | 182.6 ± 32.6 | 207.9 ± 26.3 | p = 0.073 |
| 〈Pl.V〉 (103 μm3) | 27.3 ± 7.1 | 36.5 ± 16.5 | p = 0.158 | 27.2 ± 20.1 | 20.4 ± 10.3 | p = 0.252 | 35.1 ± 21.3 | 39.4 ± 19.9 | p = 0.520 |
| 〈Pl.S〉 (103 μm2) | 623.3 ± 129.4 | 889.5 ± 365.4 | p = 0.108 | 662.3 ± 458.8 | 539.4 ± 242.3 | p = 0.350 | 800.9 ± 477.0 | 929.6 ± 383.4 | p = 0.478 |
| 〈Pl.Th〉 (μm) | 69.4 ± 5.8 | 72.4 ± 3.4 | p = 0.177 | 62.9 ± 9.1 | 64.1 ± 7.7 | p = 0.620 | 66.8 ± 5.5 | 82.3 ± 32.9 | p = 0.215 |
| 〈Pl.θ〉 (rad) | 62.2 ± 2.1 | 61.8 ± 3.3 | p = 0.539 | 62.0 ± 2.5 | 61.8 ± 1.4 | p = 0.833 | 63.9 ± 0.9 | 62.1 ± 1.2 | p = 0.028 |
| 〈Pl.Le〉 (μm) | 191.5 ± 47.2 | 243.3 ± 34.8 | p = 0.024 | 172.0 ± 57.6 | 186.7 ± 0.57 | p = 0.429 | 177.5 ± 36.9 | 266.6 ± 123.5 | p = 0.098 |
Paired t tests were performed.
Pl.BV/BV = relative bone volume fraction of plates; Pl.BV/TV = plate volume density; 〈Pl.Le〉 = mean longitudinal length of plates; 〈Pl.S〉 = mean surface of plates; 〈Pl.Th〉 = mean thickness of plates; 〈Pl.V〉 = mean volume of plates; 〈Pl.θ〉 = mean orientation of plates; Ro.BV/BV = relative bone volume fraction of rods; Ro.BV/TV = rod volume density; 〈Ro.Le〉 = mean longitudinal length of rods; 〈Ro.S〉 = mean surface of rods; 〈Ro.Th〉 = mean thickness of rods; 〈Ro.V〉 = mean volume of rods; 〈Ro.θ〉 = mean orientation of rods.
Comparison of rod- and plate-like trabeculae of the medial and the lateral tibial condyles among three groups (mean ± SD, 276 samples from n = 23 tibiae).
| Local morphometry | Adolescents (g1, 9–17 y, n = 6) | Young adults (g2, 18–24 y, n = 9) | Adults (g3, 25–30 y, n = 8) | One-way ANOVA for medial condyle | Difference between groups | One-way ANOVA for lateral condyle | Difference between groups | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Medial | Lateral | Medial | Lateral | Medial | Lateral | |||||
| Ro.BV/TV (%) | 3.68 ± 1.45 | 4.69 ± 1.60 | 3.70 ± 0.81 | 4.82 ± 1.80 | 3.71 ± 1.18 | 4.49 ± 1.06 | p = 0.893 | p = 0.960 | ||
| Pl.BV/TV (%) | 17.77 ± 4.45 | 13.90 ± 3.13 | 18.46 ± 3.92 | 16.65 ± 7.58 | 21.27 ± 4.67 | 16.30 ± 5.12 | p = 0.098 | p = 0.582 | ||
| Ro.BV/BV (%) | 19.37 ± 9.66 | 27.42 ± 9.49 | 18.43 ± 5.91 | 26.99 ± 13.9 | 19.99 ± 6.58 | 24.79 ± 7.82 | p = 0.479 | p = 0.943 | ||
| Pl.BV/BV (%) | 80.63 ± 9.66 | 72.58 ± 9.49 | 81.57 ± 5.91 | 73.01 ± 13.9 | 84.01 ± 6.58 | 75.21 ± 7.82 | p = 0.479 | p = 0.943 | ||
| 〈Ro.V〉 (103 μm3) | 4.43 ± 0.85 | 4.43 ± 0.89 | 3.52 ± 1.59 | 3.63 ± 1.33 | 3.98 ± 0.93 | 4.31 ± 0.77 | p = 0.376 | p = 0.285 | ||
| 〈Ro.S〉 (103 μm2) | 189.4 ± 25.1 | 190.7 ± 25.9 | 155.6 ± 49.8 | 159.9 ± 34.9 | 175.4 ± 32.8 | 186.9 ± 25.1 | p = 0.261 | p = 0.095 | ||
| 〈Ro.Th〉 (μm) | 81.7 ± 7.2 | 82.5 ± 6.8 | 71.8 ± 1.1 | 73.5 ± 7.2 | 79.0 ± 9.3 | 83.1 ± 7.3 | p = 0.141 | p = 0.020 | g2 < g1,g3 | |
| 〈Ro.θ〉 (rad) | 59.6 ± 0.87 | 58.5 ± 0.89 | 60.3 ± 1.30 | 58.9 ± 0.90 | 58.5 ± 1.4 | 58.3 ± 1.37 | p = 0.029 | g2 > g3 | p = 0.014 | g2 > g3 |
| 〈Ro.Le〉 (μm) | 205.4 ± 27.2 | 219.5 ± 21.7 | 170.2 ± 39.9 | 177.9 ± 29.7 | 182.6 ± 32.6 | 207.9 ± 26.3 | p = 0.178 | p = 0.017 | g1 > g2 | |
| 〈Pl.V〉 (103 μm3) | 27.3 ± 7.1 | 36.5 ± 16.5 | 27.2 ± 20.1 | 20.4 ± 10.3 | 35.1 ± 21.3 | 39.4 ± 19.9 | p = 0.622 | p = 0.049 | ||
| 〈Pl.S〉 (103 μm2) | 623.3 ± 129.4 | 889.5 ± 365.4 | 662.3 ± 458.8 | 539.4 ± 242.3 | 800.9 ± 477.0 | 929.6 ± 383.4 | p = 0.685 | p = 0.048 | ||
| 〈Pl.Th〉 (μm) | 69.4 ± 5.8 | 72.4 ± 3.4 | 62.9 ± 9.1 | 64.1 ± 7.7 | 66.8 ± 5.5 | 82.3 ± 32.9 | p = 0.232 | p = 0.202 | ||
| 〈Pl.θ〉 (rad) | 62.2 ± 2.1 | 61.8 ± 3.3 | 62.0 ± 2.5 | 61.8 ± 1.4 | 63.9 ± 0.9 | 62.1 ± 1.2 | p = 0.134 | p = 0.944 | ||
| 〈Pl.Le〉 (μm) | 191.5 ± 47.2 | 243.3 ± 34.8 | 172.0 ± 57.6 | 186.7 ± 0.57 | 177.5 ± 36.9 | 266.6 ± 123.5 | p = 0.749 | p = 0.140 | ||
Paired t tests were performed.
ANOVA = analysis of variance; Pl.BV/BV = relative bone volume fraction of plates; Pl.BV/TV = plate volume density; 〈Pl.Le〉 = mean longitudinal length of plates; 〈Pl.S〉 = mean surface of plates; 〈Pl.Th〉 = mean thickness of plates; 〈Pl.V〉 = mean volume of plates; 〈Pl.θ〉 = mean orientation of plates; Ro.BV/BV = relative bone volume fraction of rods; Ro.BV/TV = rod volume density; 〈Ro.Le〉 = mean longitudinal length of rods; 〈Ro.S〉 = mean surface of rods; 〈Ro.Th〉 = mean thickness of rods; 〈Ro.V〉 = mean volume of rods; 〈Ro.θ〉 = mean orientation of rods.
Stepwise multiple linear regression analysis on the associations between mechanical properties as dependent variables, and all measured global microarchitectural, local morphometric properties and physical and compositional properties as independent variables (all data, n = 23).
| Mechanical properties | Young's modulus (MPa) | Ultimate stress (MPa) | Failure energy (kJ/cm3) | Ultimate strain (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Regression analysis based on entire data | ||||
| First variable was entered into the equation (R2) | Apparent density (0.59)∗∗ | Apparent density (0.77)∗∗ | Apparent density (0.34)∗ | No variables were entered into the equation |
| Second variable was added (R2) | Plate thickness (0.68)∗∗ | Plate volume density (0.83)∗∗ | ||
| Third variable was added (R2) | Rod volume density (0.75)∗∗ | Plate volume (0.89)∗∗ | ||
| Regression analysis based on adolescent data only | ||||
| First variable was entered into the equation (R2) | Ro.θ (0.71)∗∗ | Plate volume (0.81)∗∗ | Connectivity density (0.94)∗∗ | No variables were entered into the equation |
| Second variable was added (R2) | Rod θ (0.99)∗∗ | |||
| Third variable was added (R2) | ||||
| Regression analysis based on young adult data only | ||||
| First variable was entered into the equation (R2) | Apparent density (0.79)∗∗ | Apparent density (0.86)∗∗ | Bone volume fraction (0.67)∗∗ | No variables were entered into the equation |
| Second variable was added (R2) | Collagen content (0.83)∗∗ | |||
| Third variable was added (R2) | ||||
| Regression analysis based on adult data only | ||||
| First variable was entered into the equation (R2) | Bone surface density (0.83)∗∗ | Apparent density (0.76)∗∗ | No variables were entered into the equation | No variables were entered into the equation |
| Second variable was added (R2) | ||||
| Third variable was added (R2) | ||||
*p < 0.01
**p < 0.001.