A comparison of the microarchitecture of lower limb long bones between some animal models and humans: a review

Abstract

Animal models are unavoidable and indispensable research tools in the fields of bone tissue engineering and experimental orthopaedics. The fact that there is not ideal animal model as well as the differences in the bone microarchitecture and physiology between animals and humans are complicate factors and make model implementation difficult. Therefore, the tendency should be directed towards extrapolation of the results from one animal model to another or from animal model to humans. So far, this is the first paper which provides an overview on the microarchitecture of lower limb long bones and discusses data related to osteon diameter, osteon canal diameter and their orientation, as well as intracortical canals and trabecular tissue microarchitecture in commonly used animal models compared to humans depending on age, gender and anatomical location of the bone. Understanding the differences between animal model and human bone microarchitecture should enable a more accurate extrapolation of experimental results from one animal model to another or from animal models to humans in the fields of bone tissue engineering and experimental orthopaedics. Also, this should be helpful in making decisions on which animal models are the most suitable for particular preclinical testing.

Computational fluid dynamic analysis of bioprinted self‐supporting perfused tissue models

“…In bone, Haversian canal diameters vary with anatomical location and with age (Cooper et al, ; Cvetkovic et al, ). In the human femoral shaft, Haversian canal diameters can reach as high as 150.4 ± 118.9 μm and osteons reaching 252 ± 24 μm (Cooper et al, ; Cvetkovic et al, ), putting our model and construct within the anatomical range of Haversian canal diameters. However, the microchannel distribution in our construct is 6.25/mm 2 , nearly half that of the in vivo canal distribution.…”

“…With the construct still adhered in place, the platen was removed from the Kenzan, leaving a SSuPer tissue construct with perfusible microchannels (Figure j,k; construct feature dimensions are provided in Supporting Information Material). While the larger diameter microchannels (400 and 1,200 µm) are achieved by the specific spheroid placement, the 200‐µm diameter microchannels are a result of the spaces left by the Kenzan needles after Kenzan removal, which approximate the diameter of Haversian Canals (Cvetkovic et al, ). It should be noted, however, that the SSuPer tissue method is intended to be generalizable to several tissue types, not just bone.…”

“…After incubating for 2 days, the collagen-coated top-platen was slid into contact with the construct (Figure 3d (Cvetkovic et al, 2013). It should be noted, however, that the SSuPer tissue method is intended to be generalizable to several tissue types, not just bone.…”

Protective Effect of Zinc; Against Salt Induced Macroscopic Changes in Humerus and Femur of Rats

“…40 The healthy bone mass is sustained by a balanced between bone formation and resorption activity. 41 Life style, genetic and dietary factors have impact on its prevalence.…”

A micro-anatomical comparison of goat jaw cancellous bone with human mandible: Histomorphometric study for implant dentistry

“…Animals such as dog, sheep, pig, goat, and rabbit showed the histological characteristics of the plexiform bone tissue in their cortical bone with the exception of human where Haversian systems are found. [2,17] The root of a tooth or dental implant is embedded within the jawbone, which in turn provides support to masticatory system. The bone implant contact (BIC) is the success of every implant.…”