Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T00:43:39.976Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of Surface Roughness and Maximum Load on the Mechanical Properties of Cancellous Bone Measured by Nanoindentation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 March 2011

Eve Donnelly ,
Shefford P. Baker ,
Adele L. Boskey  and
Marjolein C. H. van der Meulen
Eve Donnelly
Affiliation:
Sibley School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY
Shefford P. Baker
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY
Adele L. Boskey
Affiliation:
Musculoskeletal Integrity Program, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY Department of Biochemistry, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, NY Graduate Program in Physiology, Biophysics, and Systems Biology, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, NY
Marjolein C. H. van der Meulen
Affiliation:
Sibley School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY Musculoskeletal Integrity Program, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY
Get access

Abstract

Nanoindentation was used to assess the mechanical properties of lamellar and interlamellar tissue in dehydrated rabbit cancellous bone. The effects of surface roughness and maximum nanoindentation load on the measured mechanical properties were examined in two samples of differing surface roughness using maximum loads ranging from 250-3000 μN. As the ratio of indentation depth to surface roughness decreased below approximately 3:1, the variability in material properties increased substantially. At low loads, the indentation modulus of the lamellar bone was approximately 20% greater than that of the interlamellar bone, while at high loads the measured properties of both layers converged to an intermediate value. Relatively shallow indentations made on smooth surfaces revealed significant differences in the properties of lamellar and interlamellar bone that are consistent with microstructural observations of lamellar bone as more mineralized than interlamellar bone.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 823: Symposium W – Biological and Bioinspired Materials and Devices , 2004 , W8.5
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Ulrich, D., Rietbergen, B. van, Laib, A., and Ruesegger, P., Bone 25, 55 (1999)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Boyde, A. and Hobdell, M H., Z Zellforsch 93, 213 (1969).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Guo, X. E. and Goldstein, S. A., J Orthop Res 18, 333 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Hengsberger, S., Kulik, A., and Zysset, P., Bone 30, 178 (2002).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Zysset, P., Guo, X. E., Hoffler, C. E., Moore, K. E., and Goldstein, S. A.. J Biomech 32, 1005 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Kinney, J. H., Haupt, D. L., Balooch, M., Ladd, A. J. C., Ryaby, J. T., and Lane, N. E., J Bone Miner Res 15, 1981 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Rho, J.-Y., Roy, M. E., Tsui, T. Y., and Pharr, G. M.. J Biomed Mater Res 45, 48 (1999).3.0.CO;2-5>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Roy, M. E., Rho, J.-Y., Tsui, T. Y., Evans, N. D., and Pharr, G. M.. J Biomed Mater Res 44, 191 (1999).3.0.CO;2-G>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Boothroyd, B. J Cell Biol 20, 165 (1964).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Hobdell, M H. and Boyde, A., Z Zellforsch 94, 487 (1969).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Oliver, W. C. and Pharr, G. M., J Mater Res 7, 1564 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Donnelly, E., Staedler, T., Baker, S. P., and van der Meulen, M. C. H., Trans Orthop Res Soc 28, 433 (2003).Google Scholar
13. Rho, J.-Y. and Pharr, G. M.. J Mater Sci Mater Med 10, 485 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar