Literature DB >> 8853850

In vivo trabecular microcracks in human vertebral bone.

T E Wenzel1, M B Schaffler, D P Fyhrie.   

Abstract

Human vertebral cancellous bone from white males (N = 19), black males (N = 16), white females (N = 12), and black females (N = 17) was examined histologically for the presence, numerical density, and morphology of in vivo microscopic cracking (microdamage). Two patterns of microcracks, linear and cross-hatched, were observed. Linear microcracks were observed in both the central portion and near surfaces of trabeculae. Those inside trabeculae were usually single microcracks approximately 50 microns in length and were found in both cement lines and in interstitial bone matrix. Linear microcracks near the trabecular surface were usually multiple parallel cracks approximately 80 microns in length. Microcracks with a cross-hatched appearance were less prevalent. They were observed primarily in vertically oriented trabeculae and were often surrounded by an area of diffuse staining. Two-way ANOVA revealed no differences in microcrack density (Cr.Dn; #/mm2) between males and females [mean (SD) 5.13 (5.02) vs. 5.41 (6.26), respectively], but whites had significantly higher microcrack density than blacks [7.00 (5.71) vs. 3.63 (4.98), respectively, p < 0.05]. White males had a significantly higher microcrack density than black males [7.60 (5.56) vs. 2.21 (1.78), respectively, p < 0.05]. Although not statistically significant, white females also had higher microcrack density than black females. In contrast to what has been reported in the femur, regression analysis found no statistically significant relationship between microcrack density in the spine and age for any of the four race-gender groups. However, significant power relationships were found between microcrack density and bone area fraction for all groups except for black females. The difference between axial and appendicular bone remodeling rates, and their implications for microdamage accumulation, are discussed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8853850     DOI: 10.1016/8756-3282(96)88871-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Bone        ISSN: 1873-2763            Impact factor:   4.398


  33 in total

Review 1.  Microdamage and bone strength.

Authors:  David Burr
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2003-08-29       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 2.  The past, present, and future of bone morphometry: its contribution to an improved understanding of bone biology.

Authors:  Webster S S Jee
Journal:  J Bone Miner Metab       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 2.626

Review 3.  The role of osteocytes and bone microstructure in preventing osteoporotic fractures.

Authors:  Jan G Hazenberg; David Taylor; T Clive Lee
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2006-09-14       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 4.  Multiscale imaging of bone microdamage.

Authors:  Atharva A Poundarik; Deepak Vashishth
Journal:  Connect Tissue Res       Date:  2015-02-09       Impact factor: 3.417

5.  Bone microdamage.

Authors:  R D Chapurlat
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 4.507

6.  Hierarchy of Bone Microdamage at Multiple Length Scales.

Authors:  Deepak Vashishth
Journal:  Int J Fatigue       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 5.186

7.  Methodological approach for the detection of both microdamage and fluorochrome labels in ewe bone and human trabecular bone.

Authors:  Brigitte Burt-Pichat; Hélène Follet; Gwendoline Toulemonde; Monique Arlot; Pierre Delmas; Roland Chapurlat
Journal:  J Bone Miner Metab       Date:  2011-07-13       Impact factor: 2.626

Review 8.  Bone microdamage, remodeling and bone fragility: how much damage is too much damage?

Authors:  Zeynep Seref-Ferlengez; Oran D Kennedy; Mitchell B Schaffler
Journal:  Bonekey Rep       Date:  2015-03-18

Review 9.  Bone microdamage: a clinical perspective.

Authors:  R D Chapurlat; P D Delmas
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2009-03-17       Impact factor: 4.507

10.  Density and architecture have greater effects on the toughness of trabecular bone than damage.

Authors:  Jacqueline G Garrison; Constance L Slaboch; Glen L Niebur
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2009-01-14       Impact factor: 4.398

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.