Ingmar Fleps1, Hassan Bahaloo2, Philippe K Zysset3, Stephen J Ferguson4, Halldór Pálsson2, Benedikt Helgason4. 1. Institute for Biomechanics, ETH-Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland. Electronic address: ingmar.fleps@hest.ethz.ch. 2. Faculty of Industrial Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Computer Science, School of Engineering and Natural Sciences, University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland. 3. ARTORG Center for Biomedical Engineering Research, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. 4. Institute for Biomechanics, ETH-Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Ultimate strength-density relationships for bone have been reported with widely varying results. Reliable bone strength predictions are crucial for many applications that aim to assess bone failure. Bone density and bone morphology have been proposed to explain most of the variance in measured bone strength. If this holds true, it could lead to the derivation of a single ultimate strength-density-morphology relationship for all anatomical sites. METHODS: All relevant literature was reviewed. Ultimate strength-density relationships derived from mechanical testing of human bone tissue were included. The reported relationships were translated to ultimate strength-apparent density relationships and normalized with respect to strain rate. Results were grouped based on bone tissue type (cancellous or cortical), anatomical site, and loading mode (tension vs. compression). When possible, the relationships were compared to existing ultimate strength-density-morphology relationships. RESULTS: Relationships that considered bone density and morphology covered the full spectrum of eight-fold inter-study difference in reported compressive ultimate strength-density relationships for trabecular bone. This was true for studies that tested specimens in different loading direction and tissue from different anatomical sites. Sparse data was found for ultimate strength-density relationships in tension and for cortical bone properties transverse to the main loading axis of the bone. CONCLUSIONS: Ultimate strength-density-morphology relationships could explain measured strength across anatomical sites and loading directions. We recommend testing of bone specimens in other directions than along the main trabecular alignment and to include bone morphology in studies that investigate bone material properties. The lack of tensile strength data did not allow for drawing conclusions on ultimate strength-density-morphology relationships. Further studies are needed. Ideally, these studies would investigate both tensile and compressive strength-density relationships, including morphology, to close this gap and lead to more accurate evaluation of bone failure.
INTRODUCTION: Ultimate strength-density relationships for bone have been reported with widely varying results. Reliable bone strength predictions are crucial for many applications that aim to assess bone failure. Bone density and bone morphology have been proposed to explain most of the variance in measured bone strength. If this holds true, it could lead to the derivation of a single ultimate strength-density-morphology relationship for all anatomical sites. METHODS: All relevant literature was reviewed. Ultimate strength-density relationships derived from mechanical testing of human bone tissue were included. The reported relationships were translated to ultimate strength-apparent density relationships and normalized with respect to strain rate. Results were grouped based on bone tissue type (cancellous or cortical), anatomical site, and loading mode (tension vs. compression). When possible, the relationships were compared to existing ultimate strength-density-morphology relationships. RESULTS: Relationships that considered bone density and morphology covered the full spectrum of eight-fold inter-study difference in reported compressive ultimate strength-density relationships for trabecular bone. This was true for studies that tested specimens in different loading direction and tissue from different anatomical sites. Sparse data was found for ultimate strength-density relationships in tension and for cortical bone properties transverse to the main loading axis of the bone. CONCLUSIONS: Ultimate strength-density-morphology relationships could explain measured strength across anatomical sites and loading directions. We recommend testing of bone specimens in other directions than along the main trabecular alignment and to include bone morphology in studies that investigate bone material properties. The lack of tensile strength data did not allow for drawing conclusions on ultimate strength-density-morphology relationships. Further studies are needed. Ideally, these studies would investigate both tensile and compressive strength-density relationships, including morphology, to close this gap and lead to more accurate evaluation of bone failure.