0
Research Papers

Effect of Intraspecimen Spatial Variation in Tissue Mineral Density on the Apparent Stiffness of Trabecular Bone

[+] Author and Article Information
Narges Kaynia

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, MA 02139
e-mail: nkaynia@mit.edu

Elaine Soohoo

Departments of Mechanical
Engineering and Bioengineering,
University of California,
Berkeley, CA 94720
e-mail: soohoo.elaine@gmail.com

Tony M. Keaveny

Departments of Mechanical
Engineering and Bioengineering,
University of California,
Berkeley, CA 94720
e-mail: tmk@me.berkeley.edu

Galateia J. Kazakia

Department of Radiology and
Biomedical Imaging,
University of California San Francisco,
185 Berry Street, Suite 350,
San Francisco, CA 94107
e-mail: galateia.kazakia@ucsf.edu

1Corresponding author.

Manuscript received August 5, 2014; final manuscript received November 17, 2014; accepted manuscript posted December 10, 2014; published online December 10, 2014. Assoc. Editor: Blaine A. Christiansen.

J Biomech Eng 137(1), 011010 (Jan 01, 2015) (6 pages) Paper No: BIO-14-1366; doi: 10.1115/1.4029178 History: Received August 05, 2014; Revised November 17, 2014; Accepted December 10, 2014; Online December 10, 2014

This study investigated the effects of intraspecimen variations in tissue mineral density (TMD) on the apparent-level stiffness of human trabecular bone. High-resolution finite element (FE) models were created for each of 12 human trabecular bone specimens, using both microcomputed tomography (μCT) and “gold-standard” synchrotron radiation μCT (SRμCT) data. Our results confirm that incorporating TMD spatial variation reduces the calculated apparent stiffness compared to homogeneous TMD models. This effect exists for both μCT- and SRμCT-based FE models, but is exaggerated in μCT-based models. This study provides a direct comparison of μCT to SRμCT data and is thereby able to conclude that the influence of including TMD heterogeneity is overestimated in μCT-based models.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2015 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Schematic representation of the three material models evaluated for each specimen

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Mean Etissue plotted against mean TMD for each specimen as calculated from μCT and SRμCT images (n = 12)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Regressions and Bland–Altman analyses of EHET, EHOM, and EREF demonstrate that the μCT-based FE analysis underestimates apparent modulus when models are specimen-specific. Regression results follow: EHETy = 1.42 x − 32 R2= 0.99; EHOMy = 1.34 x − 27 R2= 0.99; EREFy = 0.90 x + 28 R2= 0.99. In the Bland–Altman plots, empty and filled markers represent low and high BV/TV samples, respectively.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Apparent modulus for the μCT and SRμCT images, stratified by low (n = 8) versus high (n = 4) BV/TV. *p = 0.008, + p = 0.125. Combined analysis (low and high BV/TV groups together) results in p = 0.0005.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Normalized apparent modulus of the μCT and SRμCT images. *p = 0.0005

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Bland-Altman plot comparing μCT to SRμCT results for the normalized apparent modulus EHET/EHOM. Dark dashed line is the mean, light dashed lines are the 95% CI. Empty and filled markers represent low and high BV/TV samples, respectively.

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In