» Articles » PMID: 19716106

Differences in the Mechanical Behavior of Cortical Bone Between Compression and Tension when Subjected to Progressive Loading

Overview
Publisher Elsevier
Date 2009 Sep 1
PMID 19716106
Citations 16
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The hierarchical arrangement of collagen and mineral into bone tissue presumably maximizes fracture resistance with respect to the predominant strain mode in bone. Thus, the ability of cortical bone to dissipate energy may differ between compression and tension for the same anatomical site. To test this notion, we subjected bone specimens from the anterior quadrant of human cadaveric tibiae to a progressive loading scheme in either uniaxial tension or uniaxial compression. One tension (dog-bone shape) and one compression specimen (cylindrical shape) were collected each from tibiae of nine middle aged male donors. At each cycle of loading-dwell-unloading-dwell-reloading, we calculated maximum stress, permanent strain, modulus, stress relaxation, time constant, and three pathways of energy dissipation for both loading modes. In doing so, we found that bone dissipated greater energy through the mechanisms of permanent and viscoelastic deformation in compression than in tension. On the other hand, however, bone dissipated greater energy through the release of surface energy in tension than in compression. Moreover, differences in the plastic and viscoelastic properties after yielding were not reflected in the evolution of modulus loss (an indicator of damage accumulation), which was similar for both loading modes. A possible explanation is that differences in damage morphology between the two loading modes may favor the plastic and viscoelastic energy dissipation in compression, but facilitate the surface energy release in tension. Such detailed information about failure mechanisms of bone at the tissue-level would help explain the underlying causes of bone fractures.

Citing Articles

Mechanical response and in-situ deformation mechanism of cortical bone materials under combined compression and torsion loads.

Sun X, Wu W, Zhang R, Qu H, Wang J, Xu K PLoS One. 2022; 17(7):e0271301.

PMID: 35895673 PMC: 9328520. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0271301.


Intrafibrillar mineralization deficiency and osteogenesis imperfecta mouse bone fragility.

Maghsoudi-Ganjeh M, Samuel J, Ahsan A, Wang X, Zeng X J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2021; 117:104377.

PMID: 33636677 PMC: 8009844. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2021.104377.


Is the 0.2%-Strain-Offset Approach Appropriate for Calculating the Yield Stress of Cortical Bone?.

Zhang G, Luo J, Zheng G, Bai Z, Cao L, Mao H Ann Biomed Eng. 2021; 49(7):1747-1760.

PMID: 33479788 DOI: 10.1007/s10439-020-02719-2.


Multi-compartment scaffold fabricated via 3D-printing as in vitro co-culture osteogenic model.

De Giglio E, Bonifacio M, Ferreira A, Cometa S, Ti Z, Stanzione A Sci Rep. 2018; 8(1):15130.

PMID: 30310164 PMC: 6181937. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-33472-1.


Brillouin spectroscopy and radiography for assessment of viscoelastic and regenerative properties of mammalian bones.

Akilbekova D, Ogay V, Yakupov T, Sarsenova M, Umbayev B, Nurakhmetov A J Biomed Opt. 2018; 23(9):1-11.

PMID: 30264554 PMC: 8357194. DOI: 10.1117/1.JBO.23.9.097004.


References
1.
Hernandez C, Keaveny T . A biomechanical perspective on bone quality. Bone. 2006; 39(6):1173-81. PMC: 1876764. DOI: 10.1016/j.bone.2006.06.001. View

2.
ASCENZI A, Benvenuti A, Mango F, Simili R . Mechanical hysteresis loops from single osteons: technical devices and preliminary results. J Biomech. 1985; 18(5):391-8. DOI: 10.1016/0021-9290(85)90294-5. View

3.
Yeni Y, Christopherson G, Turner A, Les C, Fyhrie D . Apparent viscoelastic anisotropy as measured from nondestructive oscillatory tests can reflect the presence of a flaw in cortical bone. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2004; 69(1):124-30. DOI: 10.1002/jbm.a.20128. View

4.
Yeni Y, Shaffer R, Baker K, Dong X, Grimm M, Les C . The effect of yield damage on the viscoelastic properties of cortical bone tissue as measured by dynamic mechanical analysis. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2007; 82(3):530-7. DOI: 10.1002/jbm.a.31169. View

5.
Taylor M, Tanner K, Freeman M, Yettram A . Stress and strain distribution within the intact femur: compression or bending?. Med Eng Phys. 1996; 18(2):122-31. DOI: 10.1016/1350-4533(95)00031-3. View