Variability in reference point microindentation and recommendations for testing cortical bone: Maximum load, sample orientation, mode of use, sample preparation and measurement spacing

Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials

Volumn 42, Issue , 2015, Pages 311-324

  Jenkins, T ^a   Coutts, L V ^a   Dunlop, D G ^b   Oreffo, R O C ^c   Cooper, C ^a,d,e   Harvey, N C ^a,d   Thurner, P J ^a,f  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL SOUTHAMPTON NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

^e UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^f VIENNA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Austria)

Author keywords

Bone; Bone quality; Femur; Microindentation; Reference Point Indentation

Indexed keywords

BONE; FRACTURE; INDENTATION; RISK ASSESSMENT;

BONE QUALITY; COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION; FEMUR; MEASUREMENT PARAMETERS; MECHANICAL CHARACTERISATION; MICRO INDENTATION; REFERENCE POINTS; SURFACE PREPARATION;

LOAD TESTING;

ADULT; AGED; ANIMAL TISSUE; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT TOOL; CORTICAL BONE; EPIPHYSIS; FEMALE; FEMUR HEAD; FEMUR NECK; FLUORESCENCE MICROSCOPY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; MALE; MEASUREMENT; MIDDLE AGED; NONHUMAN; PERIOSTEUM; REFERENCE POINT MICROINDENTATION; SOFT TISSUE; THICKNESS; TRABECULAR BONE; ANIMAL; BIOMECHANICS; BOVINE; FEMUR; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; MATERIALS TESTING; MECHANICS; PHYSIOLOGY; STANDARD; STANDARDS; VERY ELDERLY; WEIGHT BEARING;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ANIMALS; BIOMECHANICAL PHENOMENA; CATTLE; FEMALE; FEMUR; HUMANS; MALE; MATERIALS TESTING; MECHANICAL PROCESSES; REFERENCE STANDARDS; SPECIMEN HANDLING; WEIGHT-BEARING;

EID: 84920197305     PISSN: 17516161     EISSN: 18780180     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2014.09.030     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Aerssens J., et al. Interspecies differences in bone composition, density, and quality: Potential implications for in vivo bone research. Endocrinology 1998, 139(2):663-670.
2. Aref M., et al. In vivo reference point indentation reveals positive effects of raloxifene on mechanical properties following 6 months of treatment in skeletally mature beagle dogs. Bone 2013, 56(2):449-453.
3. Bouxsein M.L. Bone quality: where do we go from here?. Osteoporosis International 2003, 14:S118-S127.
4. Bridges D., Randall C., Hansma P.K. A new device for performing reference point indentation without a reference probe. Review of Scientific Instruments 2012, 83:4.
5. Burr D.B., Hooser M. Alterations to the en-bloc basic fuchsin staining protocol for the demonstration of microdamage produced in-vivo. Bone 1995, 17(4):431-433.
6. Burstein A.H., Reilly D.T., Martens M. Aging of bone tissue - mechanical-properties. J. Bone Jt. Surg.-Am. Volume 1976, 58(1):82-86.
7. Diez-Perez A., et al. Microindentation for in vivo measurement of bone tissue mechanical properties in humans. J Bone Miner Res 2010, 25(8):1877-1885.
8. Farr J.N., et al. In Vivo Assessment of Bone Quality in Postmenopausal Women With Type 2 Diabetes. J. Bone Miner. Res. 2014, 29(4):787-795.
9. Gallant M., et al. Pyridoxamine and Sorbinil Do Not Prevent Bone Mechanical and Tissue Deterioration in a Rat Model of Type 2 Diabetes. in ASBMR 2011.
10. Gallant M.A., et al. Reference-point indentation correlates with bone toughness assessed using whole-bone traditional mechanical testing. Bone 2013, 53(1):301-305.
11. Granke M., et al. Insights into reference point indentation involving human cortical bone: sensitivity to tissue anisotropy and mechanical behavior. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 2014, 37:174-185.
12. Gueerri-Fernandez R.C., et al. Microindentation for In Vivo Measurement of Bone Tissue Material Properties in Atypical Femoral Fracture Patients and Controls. J. Bone Miner. Res. 2013, 28(1):162-168.
13. Hammond M.A., et al. Nanoscale changes in collagen are reflected in physical and mechanical properties of bone at the microscale in diabetic rats. Bone. 60 2014, 26-32.
14. Hansma P., et al. The bone diagnostic instrument II: indentation distance increase. Rev Sci Instrum 2008, 79(6):064303.
15. Hansma P.K., Turner P.J., Fantner G.E. Bone diagnostic instrument. Review of Scientific Instruments 2006, 77(7):075105.
16. Hernandez C.J., Keaveny T.M. A biomechanical perspective on bone quality. Bone 2006, 39(6):1173-1181.
17. Hillier M.L., Bell L.S. Differentiating human bone from animal bone: A review of histological methods. J. Forensic Sci. 2007, 52(2):249-263.
18. Kaye B., et al. The Effects of Freezing on the Mechanical Properties of Bone. The Open Bone J. 2012, 4(6):14-19.
19. Koester K.J., Ager J.W., Ritchie R.O. The true toughness of human cortical bone measured with realistically short cracks. Nature Materials 2008, 7(8):672-677.
20. Lee T.C., Myers E.R., Hayes W.C. Fluorescence-aided detection of microdamage in compact bone. J. Anat. 1998, 193:179-184.
21. Li S., Demirci E., Silberschmidt V.V. Variability and anisotropy of mechanical behavior of cortical bone in tension and compression. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 2013, 21(0):109-120.
22. Liu D., Wagner H.D., Weiner S. Bending and fracture of compact circumferential and osteonal lamellar bone of the baboon tibia. J. Mater. Sci.-Mater. in Med. 2000, 11(1):49-60.
23. Manilay Z., et al. A comparative study of young and mature bovine cortical bone. Acta Biomaterialia 2013, 9(2):5280-5288.
24. Milovanovic P., et al. Nano-structural, compositional and micro-architectural signs of cortical bone fragility at the superolateral femoral neck in elderly hip fracture patients vs. healthy aged controls. Experimental Gerontology 2014, 55:19-28.
25. Mori R., Kodaka T., Naito Y. Histological Comparison of Long-Bone Cortex between 11-Year-Old Giant Cow with Dermal Dysplasia and the Child Cow Aged 8.5 Years. J. Veter. Med. Sci. 2012, 74(2):197-200.
26. Nalla R.K., et al. Role of microstructure in the aging-related deterioration of the toughness of human cortical bone. Materials Science & Engineering C-Biomimetic and Supramolecular Systems 2006, 26(8):1251-1260.
27. Randall C., et al. The bone diagnostic instrument III: Testing mouse femora. Review of Scientific Instruments 2009, 80(6):065108.
28. Randall C., et al. Applications of a New Handheld Reference Point Indentation Instrument Measuring Bone Material Strength. J. Med. Devices-Transactions of the Asme 2013, 7(4):410051-410056.
29. Rasoulian R., et al. Reference point indentation study of age-related changes in porcine femoral cortical bone. J. Biomech. 2013, 46(10):1689-1696.
30. Schuit S.C.E., et al. Fracture incidence and association with bone mineral density in elderly men and women: the Rotterdam Study. Bone 2004, 34(1):195-202.
31. Setters A., Jasiuk I. Towards a standardized reference point indentation testing procedure. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 2014, 34:57-65.
32. Sharma R., et al. Caspase-2 Maintains Bone Homeostasis by Inducing Apoptosis of Oxidatively-Damaged Osteoclasts. Plos One 2014, 9(4):e93696.
33. Siris E.S., et al. Bone mineral density thresholds for pharmacological intervention to prevent fractures. Archives of Internal Medicine 2004, 164(10):1108-1112.
34. Skedros J.G., Mason M.W., Bloebaum R.D. Modeling and remodeling in a developing artiodactyl calcaneus: A model for evaluating Frost[U+05F3]s Mechanostat hypothesis and its corollaries. Anatomical Record 2001, 263(2):167-185.
35. Thurner P.J., et al. The Effect of NaF In Vitro on the Mechanical and Material Properties of Trabecular and Cortical Bone. Advanced Materials 2009, 21(4):451-457.
36. Weiner S., Traub W., Wagner H.D. Lamellar bone: Structure-function relations. J. Struct. Biol. 1999, 126(3):241-255.
37. Yan J., et al. Fracture toughness of manatee rib and bovine femur using a chevron-notched beam test. J. Biomech. 2006, 39(6):1066-1074.