4.5 Article

Similarity in the fatigue behavior of trabecular bone across site and species

Journal

JOURNAL OF BIOMECHANICS
Volume 37, Issue 2, Pages 181-187

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0021-9290(03)00245-8

Keywords

biomechanics; cancellous bone; cyclic loading; osteoporosis; bone strength

Funding

  1. NIAMS NIH HHS [AR41481] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Within the context of improving knowledge of the structure function relations for trabecular bone for cyclic loading, we hypothesized that the S-N curve for cyclic compressive loading of trabecular bone, after accounting for differences in monotonic strength behavior, does not depend on either site or species. Thirty-five cores of fresh-frozen elderly human vertebral trabecular bone, harvested from nine donors (mean+/-S.D., age = 74+/-17 years), were biomechanically tested in compression at sigma/E-0 values (ratio of applied stress to pre-fatigue elastic modulus) ranging from 0.0026 to 0.0070, and compared against literature data (J. Biomech. Eng. 120 (1998) 647-654) for young bovine tibial trabecular bone (n = 37). As reported for the bovine bone, the number of cycles to failure for the human vertebral bone was related to sigma/E-0 by a power-law relation (r(2) = 0.54, n = 35). Quantitative comparison of these data against those reported for the bovine bone supported our hypothesis. Namely, when the differences in mean monotonic yield strain between the two types of bone were accounted for, a single S-N curve worked well for the pooled data (r(2) = 0.75, n = 72). Since elderly human vertebral and young bovine tibial trabecular bone represent two very different types of trabecular bone in terms of volume fraction and architecture, these findings suggest that the dominant failure mechanisms in trabecular bone for cyclic loading occur at the ultrastructural level. (C) 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available