4.2 Review

Mechanical Characterization of Bone: State of the Art in Experimental Approaches-What Types of Experiments Do People Do and How Does One Interpret the Results?

期刊

CURRENT OSTEOPOROSIS REPORTS
卷 16, 期 4, 页码 423-433

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11914-018-0454-8

关键词

Strength; Indentation; Toughness; Bone fracture; Mechanical test

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [AR49635, AG20618]
  2. National Science Foundation [CMMI 1363526]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The mechanical integrity of bone is determined by the direct measurement of bone mechanical properties. This article presents an overview of the current, most common, and new and upcoming experimental approaches for the mechanical characterization of bone. The key outcome variables of mechanical testing, as well as interpretations of the results in the context of bone structure and biology are also discussed. Quasi-static tests are the most commonly used for determining the resistance to structural failure by a single load at the organ (whole bone) level. The resistance to crack initiation or growth by fracture toughness testing and fatigue loading offers additional and more direct characterization of tissue material properties. Non-traditional indentation techniques and in situ testing are being increasingly used to probe the material properties of bone ultrastructure. Destructive ex vivo testing or clinical surrogate measures are considered to be the gold standard for estimating fracture risk. The type of mechanical test used for a particular investigation depends on the length scale of interest, where the outcome variables are influenced by the interrelationship between bone structure and composition. Advancement in the sensitivity of mechanical characterization techniques to detect changes in bone at the levels subjected to modifications by aging, disease, and/or pharmaceutical treatment is required. As such, a number of techniques are now available to aid our understanding of the factors that contribute to fracture risk.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据