| Literature DB >> 34843037 |
Christoph Oefner1,2,3, Elena Riemer4, Kerstin Funke5, Michael Werner5, Christoph-Eckhard Heyde6, Stephan Schoenfelder7.
Abstract
In biomechanics, large finite element models with macroscopic representation of several bones or joints are necessary to analyze implant failure mechanisms. In order to handle large simulation models of human bone, it is crucial to homogenize the trabecular structure regarding the mechanical behavior without losing information about the realistic material properties. Accordingly, morphology and fabric measurements of 60 vertebral cancellous bone samples from three osteoporotic lumbar spines were performed on the basis of X-ray microtomography (μCT) images to determine anisotropic elastic parameters as a function of bone density in the area of pedicle screw anchorage. The fabric tensor was mapped in cubic bone volumes by a 3D mean-intercept-length method. Fabric measurements resulted in a high degree of anisotropy (DA = 0.554). For the Young's and shear moduli as a function of bone volume fraction (BV/TV, bone volume/total volume), an individually fit function was determined and high correlations were found (97.3 ≤ R2 ≤ 99.1,p < 0.005). The results suggest that the mathematical formulation for the relationship between anisotropic elastic constants and BV/TV is applicable to current μCT data of cancellous bone in the osteoporotic lumbar spine. In combination with the obtained results and findings, the developed routine allows determination of elastic constants of osteoporotic lumbar spine. Based on this, the elastic constants determined using homogenization theory can enable efficient investigation of human bone using finite element analysis (FEA). Graphical Abstract Cancellous Bone with Fabric Tensor Ellipsoid representing anisotropy and principal axis (colored coordinate system) of given trabecular structure.Entities:
Keywords: Cancellous bone; Elastic anisotropy; Fabric tensor; Homogenization theory; Osteoporotic spine; μCT
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34843037 PMCID: PMC8724118 DOI: 10.1007/s11517-021-02465-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Med Biol Eng Comput ISSN: 0140-0118 Impact factor: 2.602
Fig. 1Schematic of sample preparation (a) view on sagittal (yz-)plane with horizontal lines and normal direction, (b) view on transverse (xy-)plane with defined anatomical regions (a, anterior; p, posterior; l, left; c, center; r, right), (c) example of cubic specimen
Used constants k and k from [22] with an adjusted squared correlation coefficient (= 95.6%) as a goodness-of-fit criterion [46]
| 1 | − 6.523 ⋅ 10− 3 | 6.238 ⋅ 10− 1 |
| 2 | 2.758 ⋅ 10− 1 | 1.157 ⋅ 101 |
| 3 | − 2.631 ⋅ 10− 1 | − 1.343 ⋅ 101 |
| 4 | 2.629 ⋅ 10− 1 | − 1.159 ⋅ 101 |
| 5 | 2.739 ⋅ 10− 1 | 1.879 ⋅ 101 |
| 6 | 1.782 ⋅ 10− 2 | 1.206 ⋅ 10− 1 |
| 7 | − 7.129 ⋅ 10− 2 | − 8.538 |
| 8 | 3.820 ⋅ 10− 3 | − 8.001 |
| 9 | 5.276 ⋅ 10− 3 | − 1.051 ⋅ 101 |
| 1.6 | ||
Fig. 2Methodical procedure for obtaining orthotropic elastic parameters as a function of bone volume fraction (BV/TV) from cancellous bone by μCT images, MIL and fabric tensor
Descriptive statistics of the morphological and fabric data
| Index | Mean | SD | CV(%) | Median | Min. | Max. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BV/TV (−) | 0.133 | 0.024 | 17.70 | 0.131 | 0.082 | 0.194 |
| BS/TV (m | 1.677 | 0.228 | 13.58 | 1.694 | 1.141 | 2.264 |
| Tb.Th. (μm) | 260.7* | 29.5* | 11.30* | 252.4* | 219.3* | 373.1* |
| Tb.Sp. (μm) | 984.4* | 132.1* | 13.42* | 969.3* | 774.5* | 1294.6* |
| EF (−) | 0.064* | 0.027* | 42.30* | 0.064* | -0.821 | 0.979 |
| Conn.D. (m | 1.50 | 0.54 | 35.79 | 1.50 | 0.12 | 2.87 |
| DA (−) | 0.554 | 0.067 | 12.00 | 0.559 | 0.365 | 0.694 |
| 0.326 | 0.114 | 34.90 | 0.337 | 0.112 | 0.543 | |
| 0.617 | 0.201 | 32.54 | 0.625 | 0.225 | 1.118 | |
| 0.731 | 0.238 | 32.54 | 0.723 | 0.252 | 1.297 |
* Values based on individually specimen mean values from BoneJ2 over all 60 samples
Fig. 3Boxplot of all Tb.Th. values (in μm) of cancellous bone over the five lumbar vertebrae (L1 - L5)
Fig. 4Boxplot of all Tb.Sp. values (in μm) from cancellous bone plotted over the three donors with measured T-score
Fig. 5The total bone surface per total volume (BS/TV) predicted by the bone volume fraction (BV/TV) using the model: y = Kx(1 − x)
Fig. 6Boxplot showing the primary orientation (γ) of the trabeculae in the lumbar vertebrae
Orientation of trabeculae in different anatomic regions
| Region | |
|---|---|
| 5.99 ± 4.29 | |
| 5.61 ± 3.71 | |
| 9.85 ± 6.62 | |
| 7.56 ± 3.32 |
Fig. 7Calculated Young’s and shear moduli as a function of bone volume fraction (BV/TV). Correlation of elastic parameters to volume fraction (dotted lines) yields in individually fit function using the model: y = ax
Descriptive statistics of the homogenized orthotropic elastic constants normalized to the unit bone tissue modulus E = 15GPa
| Variable | Mean | SD | Min. | Max. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13.6 ⋅ 10− 3 | 5.73 ⋅ 10− 3 | 3.69 ⋅ 10− 3 | 27.70 ⋅ 10− 3 | |
| 15.76 ⋅ 10− 3 | 7.41 ⋅ 10− 3 | 3.02 ⋅ 10− 3 | 34.50 ⋅ 10− 3 | |
| 47.60 ⋅ 10− 3 | 11.86 ⋅ 10− 3 | 22.31 ⋅ 10− 3 | 81.44 ⋅ 10− 3 | |
| 9.80 ⋅ 10− 3 | 3.49 ⋅ 10− 3 | 3.09 ⋅ 10− 3 | 19.68 ⋅ 10− 3 | |
| 8.70 ⋅ 10− 3 | 2.96 ⋅ 10− 3 | 3.69 ⋅ 10− 3 | 16.36 ⋅ 10− 3 | |
| 5.46 ⋅ 10− 3 | 2.46 ⋅ 10− 3 | 1.17 ⋅ 10− 3 | 11.92 ⋅ 10− 3 | |
| 0.109 | 0.030 | 0.056 | 0.186 | |
| 0.098 | 0.025 | 0.039 | 0.160 | |
| 0.300 | 0.058 | 0.202 | 0.464 | |
| 0.352 | 0.050 | 0.257 | 0.510 | |
| 0.358 | 0.034 | 0.296 | 0.471 | |
| 0.337 | 0.047 | 0.233 | 0.454 |
Fig. 8Visualization of directional dependent Young’s moduli in three-dimensional space for the highest (gray) and the lowest (orange) bone volume fraction. For a better comparability of the maximum stiffness ratio the outer surface was cut open. Values in MPa
Fig. 9Normalized Young’s moduli in dependence on voxel size (original voxel size: 20 μ m)