Influence of the shape of the micro‑finite element model on the mechanical properties calculated from micro‑finite element analysis

Wen,Xin‑Xin; Yu,Hai‑Long; Yan,Ya‑Bo; Zong,Chun‑Lin; Ding,Hai‑Jiao; Ma,Xiang‑Yu; Wang,Tian‑Sheng; Lei,Wei

doi:10.3892/etm.2017.4709

Influence of the shape of the micro‑finite element model on the mechanical properties calculated from micro‑finite element analysis

Authors:
- Xin‑Xin Wen
- Hai‑Long Yu
- Ya‑Bo Yan
- Chun‑Lin Zong
- Hai‑Jiao Ding
- Xiang‑Yu Ma
- Tian‑Sheng Wang
- Wei Lei
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Orthopedics, 463 Hospital of PLA, Shenyang, Liaoning 110042, P.R. China, Department of Orthopedics, General Hospital of Shenyang Military Area Command of PLA, Rescue Center of Severe Wound and Trauma of PLA, Shenyang, Liaoning 110016, P.R. China, Department of Orthopedics, Xijing Hospital, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, Shaanxi 710032, P.R. China, Department of Cranio‑facial Trauma and Orthognathic Surgery, School of Stomatology, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, Shaanxi 710032, P.R. China
Published online on: June 28, 2017 https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2017.4709
Pages: 1744-1748

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

Assessing the biomechanical properties of trabecular bone is of major biological and clinical significance for the research of bone diseases, fractures and their treatments. Micro‑finite element (µFE) models are becoming increasingly popular for investigating the biomechanical properties of trabecular bone. The shapes of µFE models typically include cube and cylinder. Whether there are differences between cubic and cylindrical µFE models has not yet been studied. In the present study, cubic and cylindrical µFE models of human vertebral trabecular bone were constructed. A 1% strain was prescribed to the model along the superior‑inferior direction. E values were calculated from these models, and paired t‑tests were performed to determine whether these were any differences between E values obtained from cubic and cylindrical models. The results demonstrated that there were no statistically significant differences in the E values between cubic and cylindrical models, and there were no significant differences in Von Mises stress distributions between the two models. These findings indicated that, to construct µFE models of vertebral trabecular bone, cubic or cylindrical models were both feasible. Choosing between the cubic or cylindrical µFE model is dependent upon the specific study design.

View Figures

View References

1	Niebur GL, Feldstein MJ, Yuen JC, Chen TJ and Keaveny TM: High-resolution finite element models with tissue strength asymmetry accurately predict failure of trabecular bone. J Biomech. 33:1575–1583. 2000. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
2	Verhulp E, Van Rietbergen B, Muller R and Huiskes R: Micro-finite element simulation of trabecular-bone post-yield behaviour-effects of material model, element size and type. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin. 11:389–395. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
3	Wolfram U, Wilke HJ and Zysset PK: Valid micro finite element models of vertebral trabecular bone can be obtained using tissue properties measured with nanoindentation under wet conditions. J Biomech. 43:1731–1737. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
4	Chevalier Y, Pahr D, Allmer H, Charlebois M and Zysset P: Validation of a voxel-based FE method for prediction of the uniaxial apparent modulus of human trabecular bone using macroscopic mechanical tests and nanoindentation. J Biomech. 40:3333–3340. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
5	Hambli R: Apparent damage accumulation in cancellous bone using neural networks. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 4:868–878. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
6	Gross T, Pahr DH and Zysset PK: Morphology-elasticity relationships using decreasing fabric information of human trabecular bone from three major anatomical locations. Biomech Model Mechanobiol. 12:793–800. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
7	Ulrich D, van Rietbergen B, Laib A and Rüegsegger P: The ability of three-dimensional structural indices to reflect mechanical aspects of trabecular bone. Bone. 25:55–60. 1999. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
8	Bevill G, Eswaran SK, Farahmand F and Keaveny TM: The influence of boundary conditions and loading mode on high-resolution finite element-computed trabecular tissue properties. Bone. 44:573–578. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
9	Otsu N: A threshold selection method from gray-level histograms. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern. 9:62–66. 1979. View Article : Google Scholar
10	Ruffoni D, Wirth AJ, Steiner JA, Parkinson IH, Müller R and van Lenthe GH: The different contributions of cortical and trabecular bone to implant anchorage in a human vertebra. Bone. 50:733–738. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
11	Ulrich D, van Rietbergen B, Weinans H and Rüegsegger P: Finite element analysis of trabecular bone structure: A comparison of image-based meshing techniques. J Biomech. 31:1187–1192. 1998. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
12	Kamaya M: Stress-strain curve estimation procedures for stainless steels based on yield and ultimate strengths. Eng Fract Mech. 127:194–210. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar
13	Hambli R: Micro-CT finite element model and experimental validation of trabecular bone damage and fracture. Bone. 56:363–374. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
14	Cowin SC: Bone mechanics handbook. 2nd. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2001
15	Hou FJ, Lang SM, Hoshaw SJ, Reimann DA and Fyhrie DP: Human vertebral body apparent and hard tissue stiffness. J Biomech. 31:1009–1015. 1998. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
16	van Rietbergen B and Ito K: A survey of micro-finite element analysis for clinical assessment of bone strength: The first decade. J Biomech. 48:832–841. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
17	Kim DG, Hunt CA, Zauel R, Fyhrie DP and Yeni YN: The effect of regional variations of the trabecular bone properties on the compressive strength of human vertebral bodies. Ann Biomed Eng. 35:1907–1913. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
18	Aiyangar AK, Vivanco J, Au AG, Anderson PA, Smith EL and Ploeg HL: Dependence of anisotropy of human lumbar vertebral trabecular bone on quantitative computed tomography-based apparent density. J Biomech Eng. 136:0910032014.PubMed/NCBI
19	Depalle B, Chapurlat R, Walter-Le-Berre H, Bou-Saïd B and Follet H: Finite element dependence of stress evaluation for human trabecular bone. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 18:200–212. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
20	Kim DG, Christopherson GT, Dong XN, Fyhrie DP and Yeni YN: The effect of microcomputed tomography scanning and reconstruction voxel size on the accuracy of stereological measurements in human cancellous bone. Bone. 35:1375–1382. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
21	Maloul A, Fialkov J and Whyne C: The impact of voxel size-based inaccuracies on the mechanical behavior of thin bone structures. Ann Biomed Eng. 39:1092–1100. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
22	Yeni YN, Christopherson GT, Dong XN, Kim DG and Fyhrie DP: Effect of microcomputed tomography voxel size on the finite element model accuracy for human cancellous bone. J Biomech Eng. 127:1–8. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
23	Bauer JS, Sidorenko I, Mueller D, Baum T, Issever AS, Eckstein F, Rummeny EJ, Link TM and Raeth CW: Prediction of bone strength by µCT and MDCT-based finite-element-models: How much spatial resolution is needed? Eur J Radiol. 83:e36–e42. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
24	Isaksson H, Töyräs J, Hakulinen M, Aula AS, Tamminen I, Julkunen P, Kröger H and Jurvelin JS: Structural parameters of normal and osteoporotic human trabecular bone are affected differently by microCT image resolution. Osteoporos Int. 22:167–177. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
25	Niebur GL, Yuen JC, Hsia AC and Keaveny TM: Convergence behavior of high-resolution finite element models of trabecular bone. J Biomech Eng. 121:629–635. 1999. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
26	Pahr DH and Zysset PK: Influence of boundary conditions on computed apparent elastic properties of cancellous bone. Biomech Model Mechanobiol. 7:463–476. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
27	Yan YB, Qi W, Wang J, Liu LF, Teo EC, Tianxia Q, Ba JJ and Lei W: Relationship between architectural parameters and sample volume of human cancellous bone in micro-CT scanning. Med Eng Phys. 33:764–769. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
28	Wang Y, Owoc JS, Boyd SK, Videman T and Battié MC: Regional variations in trabecular architecture of the lumbar vertebra: Associations with age, disc degeneration and disc space narrowing. Bone. 56:249–254. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
29	Wegrzyn J, Roux JP, Arlot ME, Boutroy S, Vilayphiou N, Guyen O, Delmas PD, Chapurlat R and Bouxsein ML: Role of trabecular microarchitecture and its heterogeneity parameters in the mechanical behavior of ex vivo human L3 vertebrae. J Bone Miner Res. 25:2324–2331. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
30	Chen H, Shoumura S, Emura S and Bunai Y: Regional variations of vertebral trabecular bone microstructure with age and gender. Osteoporos Int. 19:1473–1483. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
31	Hulme PA, Boyd SK and Ferguson SJ: Regional variation in vertebral bone morphology and its contribution to vertebral fracture strength. Bone. 41:946–957. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
32	Parkinson IH, Badiei A, Stauber M, Codrington J, Müller R and Fazzalari NL: Vertebral body bone strength: The contribution of individual trabecular element morphology. Osteoporos Int. 23:1957–1965. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
33	Lü L, Meng G, Gong H, Zhu D, Gao J and Fan Y: Tissue level microstructure and mechanical properties of the femoral head in the proximal femur of fracture patients. Acta Mech Sinica. 31:259–267. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar
34	Hildebrand T, Laib A, Müller R, Dequeker J and Rüegsegger P: Direct three-dimensional morphometric analysis of human cancellous bone: Microstructural data from spine, femur, iliac crest, and calcaneus. J Bone Miner Res. 14:1167–1174. 1999. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
35	Eckstein F, Matsuura M, Kuhn V, Priemel M, Müller R, Link TM and Lochmüller EM: Sex differences of human trabecular bone microstructure in aging are site-dependent. J Bone Miner Res. 22:817–824. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI