Volume 19, Issue 6 pp. 1001-1007
Article
Free Access

Relative roles of microdamage and microfracture in the mechanical behavior of trabecular bone

Oscar C. Yeh

Corresponding Author

Oscar C. Yeh

Orthopaedic Biomechanics Laboratory, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of California, 2166 Etcheverry Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720-1720, USA

Orthopaedic Biomechanics Laboratory, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of California, 2166 Etcheverry Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720-1720, USA, Tel.: +1-510-642-3787; fax: +1-510-642-6163Search for more papers by this author
Tony M. Keaveny

Tony M. Keaveny

Orthopaedic Biomechanics Laboratory, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of California, 2166 Etcheverry Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720-1720, USA

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA

Department of Bioengineering, University of California, 6175 Etcheverry Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720-1720, USA

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 01 January 2006
Citations: 72

Abstract

Compared to trabecular microfracture, the biomechanical consequences of the morphologically more subtle trabecular micro-damage are unclear but potentially important because of its higher incidence. A generic three-dimensional finite element model of the trabecular bone microstructure was used to investigate the relative biomechanical roles of these damage categories on reloading elastic modulus after simulated overloads to various strain levels. Microfractures of individual trabeculae were modeled using a maximum fracture strain criterion, for three values of fracture strain (2%, 8%, and 35%). Microdamage within the trabeculae was modeled using a strain-based modulus reduction rule based on cortical bone behavior. When combining the effects of both microdamage and microfracture, the model predicted reductions in apparent modulus upon reloading of over 60% at an applied apparent strain of 2%, in excellent agreement with previously reported experimental data. According to the model, up to 80% of the trabeculae developed microdamage at 2% apparent strain, and between 2% and 10% of the trabeculae were fractured, depending on which fracture strain was assumed. If microdamage could not occur but microfracture could, good agreement with the experimental data only resulted if the trabecular hard tissue had a fracture strain of 2%. However, a high number of fractures (10% of the trabeculae) would need to occur for this case, and this has not been observed in published damage morphology studies. We conclude therefore that if the damage behavior of trabecular hard tissue is similar to that of cortical bone, then extensive microdamage is primarily responsible for the large loss in apparent mechanical properties that can occur with overloading of trabecular bone. © 2001 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.