Comparative analysis of bone remodelling models with respect to computerised tomography-based finite element models of bone

Abstract

Subject-specific finite element models are an extensively used tool for the numerical analysis of the biomechanical behaviour of human bones. However, bone modelling is not an easy task due to the complex behaviour of bone tissue, involving non-homogeneous and anisotropic mechanical properties. Moreover, bone is a living tissue and therefore its microstructure and mechanical properties evolve with time in a known process called bone remodelling. This phenomenon has been widely studied, many being the numerical models that have been formulated to predict density distribution and its evolution in several bones. The aim of the present study is to assess the capability of a bone remodelling model to predict the bone density distribution of different types of human bone (femur, tibia and mandible) comparing the obtained results with the bone density estimated by means of computerised tomography. Good accuracy was observed for the bone remodelling predictions including the thickness of the cortical layer.

Comparative Finite Element Analysis of the Debonding Process in Different Concepts of Cemented Hip Implants

“…To asses the predictions obtained, the bone density distribution computed by the bone remodeling analysis was compared to the CT data. 45 After that, the femoral head was removed and each prosthesis implanted. In the following stages, bone properties remained constant.…”

Load Transfer Along the Bone-Implant Interface and Its Effects on Bone Maintenance

“…Mathematical models mentioned previously were originally developed to study the phenomenon of bone adaptation to functional loads in long bone. However, simulations of bone remodeling in other bone regions such as acetabulum, proximal tibia, metacarpal, calcaneus and mandible (Carter & Beaupré, 2001;Pérez et al, 2010;Reina et al, 2007) have been reported. These long bone remodeling theories were used to study the bone remodeling, as a result of biomechanical alteration of the equilibrium state in the jaw bone due to use of dental implants (Lin et al, 2009a).…”

Four decades of finite element analysis of orthopaedic devices: Where are we now and what are the opportunities?

“…Bone adaptation and remodelling: Bone remodelling simulations have been performed extensively, primarily to assess stress shielding around the femoral component of hip arthroplasty (Perez et al, 2010;Taylor et al, 2004;Weinans et al, 1994;Gupta et al, 2006;Huiskes et al, 1992;Weinans et al, 1992Weinans et al, , 1993Stulpner et al, 1997;Folgado et al, 2009;Pal and Gupta 2011;Shim et al, 2012). Since the publication of the first bone remodelling simulations around implants by Huiskes and co-workers (Huiskes, 1988), there have only been incremental developments, for example accounting for overload induced bone loss (Behrens et al, 2009;Scannell and Prendergast, 2009).…”

“…The main focus of this review will be hip and knee replacement, as these have been studied the most, but the issues raised are applicable to the simulation of all orthopaedic devices. FE models have grown in both size and sophistication and techniques exist to assess the initial post-op mechanical environment Zivkovic et al, 2010;Chong et al, 2010;Pettersen et al, 2009;Reggiani et al, 2008;Udofia et al, 2007;Spears et al, 2001;Baldwin et al, 2008;Godest et al, 2002;Taylor and Barrett 2003;Perillo-Marcone and Taylor 2007;Chang et al, 2001) through to the simulation of time dependent processes including bone remodelling induced stress shielding (Huiskes et al, 1987;Perez et al, 2010;Behrens et al, 2009;Gillies et al, 2007;Taylor et al, 2004;McNamara et al, 1997;Weinans et al, 1994;Rietbergen et al, 1993;Gupta et al, 2006), tissue adaptation Andreykiv et al, 2005;Simmons et al, 2001), wear (Strickland et al, 2011;Strickland and Taylor 2009;Knight et al, 2007;Fregly et al, 2005;Bevill et al, 2005;Teoh et al, 2002;Brown et al, 2002;Maxian et al, 1996;Pal et al, 2008), damage accumulation of the cement mantle (Coultrup et al, 2010;Janssen et al, 2009;Lennon et al, 2007;Jeffers et al, 2007;Janssen et al, 2006;…”