1975
DOI: 10.1179/009346975791491042
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Quantifying Continuous Lesions and Fractures on Long Bones

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

1987
1987
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In our study, the fracture pattern appeared linear on fractured fresh bones (series 1) and irregular on dry bones (6 months, series 3, 4, 5). Dry bone fractures showed a staircase shape due to the more heterogeneous nature of dry bones .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In our study, the fracture pattern appeared linear on fractured fresh bones (series 1) and irregular on dry bones (6 months, series 3, 4, 5). Dry bone fractures showed a staircase shape due to the more heterogeneous nature of dry bones .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The stepped edges are due in large part to the fact that weathering cracks appear along the surface of the bone as it dehydrates, which cause new fracture fronts to terminate upon intersection with another crack. This will create a step‐like appearance along the edge of the fracture (12,15). Micro‐step fractures can also occur in fresh bone if the fracture front splits to bypass structural irregularities of the bone (12).…”
Section: Perimortem Versus Postmortem Fracture Characteristicsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One of the primary challenges is how to subdivide the broken surface of a fragment into separate breaks. This issue has been acknowledged in the published research since the 1970s (Biddick & Tomenchuk, 1975;Bunn, 1982Bunn, , 1989Davis, 1985;Pickering et al, 2005). The selection of break endpoints and the measurement of angles using the virtual goniometer results in visualizations that clearly communicate how we chose to subdivide the fragments in our sample, which can then be the basis for conversations that can move beyond the recognition of the challenge toward the development of a quantifiable, replicable convention.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…To know how each feature was extracted from the fragments, it is important to understand how we defined the features and in particular how we differentiated breaks, because, as researchers have previously acknowledged, identifying breaks is not always a straight forward task (Biddick & Tomenchuk, 1975;Bunn, 1982Bunn, , 1989Davis, 1985;Pickering, Domínguez-Rodrigo, Egeland, & Brain, 2005). As Bunn (1982, p.43) points out, the boundary between breaks is neither well-defined nor is it always obvious.…”
Section: Our Experimental Samplementioning
confidence: 99%