Izvestiya of Saratov University.

Mathematics. Mechanics. Informatics

ISSN 1816-9791 (Print)
ISSN 2541-9005 (Online)

For citation:

Parshina I. F., Ivanov D. V., Dol A. V., Vindokurov I. V., Bessonov L. V., Tashkinov M. A. On the issue of studying the structural and mechanical characteristics of bovine cancellous bone. Izvestiya of Saratov University. Mathematics. Mechanics. Informatics, 2025, vol. 25, iss. 2, pp. 231-245. DOI: 10.18500/1816-9791-2025-25-2-231-245, EDN: QLRACF

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0).
Published online: 
30.05.2025
Full text:
download
(downloads: 465)
Language: 
Russian
Heading: 
Mechanics
Article type: 
Article
UDC: 
531/534:[57+61]
DOI: 
10.18500/1816-9791-2025-25-2-231-245
EDN: 
QLRACF

On the issue of studying the structural and mechanical characteristics of bovine cancellous bone

Autors: 
Parshina Irina F., Saratov State University
Ivanov Dmitry V., Saratov State University
Dol Aleksander Viktorovich, Saratov State University
Vindokurov Iliya V., Perm National Research Polytechnic University
Bessonov Leonid Valentinovich, Saratov State University
Tashkinov Mikhail A., Perm National Research Polytechnic University
Abstract: 

Mechanical experiments with human bones are difficult, so many authors study mechanical parameters of bovine cancellous bone, which is close to human bone in its properties. Studies on estimation of the effective modulus of elasticity of cancellous bone of vertebrae and other bovine bones are known. However, its mechanical properties depending on the direction of loading and structural properties have not been studied yet. The aim of this work was to comprehensively study the mechanical properties of bovine cancellous bone depending on the loading direction, volumetric mineral density and porosity. The objectives of this work were: to develop requirements for the size of samples in uniaxial compression to estimate the effective modulus of elasticity within the framework of the rod theory; to conduct uniaxial mechanical experiments on compression of bone specimens in three directions; to measure the volumetric bone mineral density and porosity; to construct regression relationships linking mechanical and structural properties of cancellous bone. As a result of the study, the dependences linking the effective modulus of elasticity with mineral density, as well as porosity of cancellous bone were revealed. The author's method of determining the porosity of cancellous bone was developed and presented. As a result of the study, the dependences linking the effective modulus of elasticity with mineral density and porosity of cancellous bone were revealed. The author's method of determining the porosity of cancellous bone was developed and presented. The paper also presents the requirements for the relative height (ratio of height to the largest cross-sectional dimension) of cancellous bone specimens. It was revealed that when conducting uniaxial compression experiments and further calculation of the effective modulus of elasticity according to the rod theory, the relative height of the specimens should be at least 5 units.

Key words: 
cancellous bone
vertebrae
knee joint
effective modulus of elasticity
Poisson’s ratio
uniaxial compression
Acknowledgments: 
This work was supported by the State Assignment (projects No. FSRR-2023-0009, and No. FSNM-2025-0001). The experiments on sample compression were carried out with the support of the Potanin Foundation (project No. PR23-000397).
References: 
  1. Haseltine K. N., Chukir T., Smith P. J., Jacob J. T., Bilezikian J. P., Farooki A. Bone mineral density: Clinical relevance and quantitative assessment. Journal of Nuclear Medicine, 2021, vol. 62, iss. 4, pp. 446–454. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.120.256180
  2. Park C. S., Kang S. R., Kim J. E., Huh K. H., Lee S. S., Heo M. S., Han J. J., Yi W. J. Validation of bone mineral density measurement using quantitative CBCT image based on deep learning. Scientific Reports, 2023, vol. 13, iss. 1, art. 11921. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-38943-8
  3. Toyras J., Nieminen M. T., Kroger H., Jurvelin J. S. Bone mineral density, ultrasound velocity, and broadband attenuation predict mechanical properties of trabecular bone differently. Bone, 2002, vol. 31, iss. 4, pp. 503–507. https://doi.org/10.1016/s8756-3282(02)00843-8
  4. Haba Y., Lindner T., Fritsche A., Schiebenhofer A. K., Souffrant R., Kluess D., Skripitz R., Mittelmeier W., Bader R. Relationship between mechanical properties and bone mineral density of human femoral bone retrieved from patients with osteoarthritis. The Open Orthopaedics Journal, 2012, vol. 6, pp. 458–463. https://10.2174/1874325001206010458
  5. Bessonov L. V., Kirillova I. V., Falkovich A. S., Ivanov D. V., Dol A. V., Kossovich L. Yu. The “Planning – Modelling – Prediction” methodology for preoperative planning in trauma orthopaedics. Izvestiya of Saratov University. Mathematics. Mechanics. Informatics, 2024, vol. 24, iss. 3, pp. 359–380 (in Russian). https://doi.org/10.18500/1816-9791-2024-24-3-359-380, EDN: IQBZWJ
  6. Rho J. Y., Hobatho M. C., Ashman R. B. Relations of mechanical properties to density and CT numbers in human bone. Medical Engineering & Physics, 1995, vol. 17, iss. 5, pp. 47–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/1350-4533(95)97314-f
  7. Ivanov D. V., Kirillova I. V., Kossovich L. Yu., Bessonov L. V., Petraikin A. V., Dol A. V., Ahmad E. S., Morozov S. P., Vladzymyrskyy A. V., Sergunova K. A., Kharlamov A. V. Influence of convolution kernel and beam-hardening effect on the assessment of trabecular bone mineral density using quantitative computed tomography. Izvestiya of Saratov University. Mathematics. Mechanics. Informatics, 2020, vol. 20, iss. 2, pp. 205–219. https://doi.org/10.18500/1816-9791-2020-20-2-205-219, EDN: BFUICL
  8. Lu Y., Engelke K., Puschel K., Morlock M. M., Huber G. Influence of 3D QCT scan protocol on the QCT-based finite element models of human vertebral cancellous bone. Medical Engineering & Physics, 2014, vol. 36, iss. 8, pp. 1069–1073. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medengphy.2014.05.001
  9. Giambini H., Dragomir-Daescu D., Nassr A., Yaszemski M. J., Zhao C. Quantitative computed tomography protocols affect material mapping and quantitative computed tomography-based finite-element analysis predicted stiffness. Journal of Biomechanical Engineering, 2016, vol. 138, iss. 9, art. 0910031. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4034172
  10. Zhang A., Zhang S., Bian C. Mechanical properties of bovine cortical bone based on the automated ball indentation technique and graphics processing method. Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials, 2018, vol. 78, pp. 321–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2017.11.039
  11. Endo K., Yamada S., Todoh M., Takahata M., Iwasaki N., Tadano S. Structural strength of cancellous specimens from bovine femur under cyclic compression. PeerJ, 2016, vol. 25. iss. 4, art. e1562. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1562
  12. Yu B., Zhao G. F., Lim J. I., Lee Y. K. Compressive mechanical properties of bovine cortical bone under varied loading rates. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part H, 2011, vol. 225, iss. 10, pp. 941–947. https://doi.org/10.1177/0954411911415470
  13. Arnold E. L., Clement J., Rogers K. D., Garcia-Castro F., Greenwood C. The use of CT and fractal dimension for fracture prediction in osteoporotic individuals. Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials, 2020, vol. 103, art. 103585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2019.103585
  14. Öhman-Mägi C., Holub O., Wu D., Hall R. M., Persson C. Density and mechanical properties of vertebral trabecular bone-A review. JOR Spine, 2021, vol. 4, iss. 4, art. e1176. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsp2.1176
  15. Mosekilde L., Bentzen S. M., Ortoft G., Jørgensen J. The predictive value of quantitative computed tomography for vertebral body compressive strength and ash density. Bone, 1989, vol. 10, iss. 6, pp. 465–470. https://doi.org/10.1016/8756-3282(89)90080-x
  16. Bessonov L. V., Golyadkina A. A., Dmitriev P. O., Dol A. V., Zolotov V. S., Ivanov D. V., Kirillova I. V., Kossovich L. Y., Titova Yu. I., Ulyanov V. Yu., Kharlamov A. V. Constructing the dependence between the Young’s modulus value and the Hounsfield units of spongy tissue of human femoral heads. Izvestiya of Saratov University. Mathematics. Mechanics. Informatics, 2021, vol. 21, iss. 2, pp. 182–193. https://doi.org/10.18500/1816-9791-2021-21-2-182-193, EDN: SNBJNB
  17. Islam M., Zunair H., Mohammed N. CosSIF: Cosine similarity-based image filtering to overcome low inter-class variation in synthetic medical image datasets. Computers in Biology and Medicine, 2024, vol. 172, art. 108317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiomed.2024.108317
  18. Zhao S., Arnold M., Ma S., Abel R. L., Cobb J. P., Hansen U., Boughton O. Standardizing compression testing for measuring the stiffness of human bone. Bone & Joint Research, 2018, vol. 7, iss. 8, pp. 524–538. https://doi.org/10.1302/2046-3758.78.BJR-2018-0025.R1
  19. Keaveny T. M., Borchers R. E., Gibson L. J., Hayes W. C. Theoretical analysis of the experimental artifact in trabecular bone compressive modulus. Journal of Biomechanics, 1993, vol. 26, iss. 4–5, pp. 599–607. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9290(93)90021-6
  20. Currey J. D. The effect of porosity and mineral content on the Young’s modulus of elasticity of compact bone. Journal of Biomechanics, 1988, vol. 21, iss. 2, pp. 131–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9290(88)90006-1
  21. Nazarian A., von Stechow D., Zurakowski D., Müller R., Snyder B. D. Bone volume fraction explains the variation in strength and stiffness of cancellous bone affected by metastatic cancer and osteoporosis. Calcified Tissue International, 2008, vol. 83, iss. 6, pp. 368–379. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00223-008-9174-x
  22. Hodgskinson R., Currey J. D. The effect of variation in structure on the Young’s modulus of cancellous bone: A comparison of human and non-human material. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part H, 1990, vol. 204, iss. 2, pp. 115–121. https://doi.org/10.1243/PIME_PROC_1990_204_240_02
Received: 
20.12.2024
Accepted: 
19.02.2025
Published: 
30.05.2025
  • 1053 reads