2013
DOI: 10.1016/j.msec.2013.07.018
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The effects of loading conditions and specimen environment on the nanomechanical response of canine cortical bone

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

2
11
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

2
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 35 publications
2
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…30 The nanoindentation test showed that the mean H and E values for cortical bone were higher than for trabecular bone, irrespective of whether the implants were loaded or remained unloaded, but this result was not statistically different. The present results are in agreement with those of other studies of canine models 22,30 and human bone. 16,31 It is likely that the results obtained for cortical and trabecular bone were not statistically different, because the latter can be subject to changes to near-cortical-like bone from immediate loading.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 94%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…30 The nanoindentation test showed that the mean H and E values for cortical bone were higher than for trabecular bone, irrespective of whether the implants were loaded or remained unloaded, but this result was not statistically different. The present results are in agreement with those of other studies of canine models 22,30 and human bone. 16,31 It is likely that the results obtained for cortical and trabecular bone were not statistically different, because the latter can be subject to changes to near-cortical-like bone from immediate loading.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 94%
“…20 A wax chamber was created above the acrylic plate around the implant-in-bone perimeter, which kept the sample fully immersed during the test (thrice-distilled water; neutral pH, 7.1). 21,22 A loading profile was developed with a peak load of 300 mN at a rate of 60 mN per second, followed by a holding time of 10 seconds and an unloading time of 2 seconds. The extended holding period allowed the bone to relax to a more linear response, so that no tissue creep effect occurred in the unloading portion of the profile.…”
Section: Nanoindentationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Indeed, the biomechanical properties of bones are determined by composition and micro-/nano-structures, which can be dependent on factors such as anatomical locations and donor conditions [ 24 27 ]. Otherwise, the loading method was also an influence factor of bone micro-biomechanical characteristics [ 22 , 28 ]. In the present study, we applied nanoindentation technique to determine the elastic modulus and hardness of cortical and cancellous bones.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Rehydration of the slides was performed by storing each specimen in nanopure water (18.2 MΩ; Millipore, USA) at room temperature for 1 hr prior to the test. Immediately before the test, nanopure water droplets were added for testing under wet environmental conditions (Doerner & Nix, ; Lee et al, ). Previous studies have illustrated that nanoindentation of bone should be performed in a wet environment, as the hydrated tissues show a pronounced viscoelastic behaviour with the higher loading rates significantly altering the interaction of collagen/water and the water flow, leading to higher mechanical properties (Kulin, Jiang, & Vecchio, ; Ntim, Bembey, Ferguson, et al, ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…From each analysed load–displacement curve (Figure b), reduced elastic modulus, E r , (GPa) and hardness, H , (GPa) of bone tissue were computed via the Hysitron TriboScan Software with the following formulas, respectively: Er=normalπ2A0.15em()hc×S, H=PmaxA0.15em()hc, where S is the stiffness, h c is the contact depth, P max is the maximum force (300 μN) and A ( h c ) is the contact area computed from the Hysitron TriboScan software taking into account the area function with respect to contact depth (Oliver & Pharr, ). From the reduced modulus, E r , the reduced elastic modulus of the bone ( E b ) was calculated using the following relationship derived from Hertzian contact mechanics: Eb=()1νb20.15emEiErEi()1νi20.15emEr, where v b is the Poisson's ratio of the bone and E i and v i are the elastic modulus and Poisson's ratio of the indenter, respectively (Hoffler, Guo, Zysset, et al, ; Lee et al, ; Oliver & Pharr, ). After nanoindentation was completed, slides were imaged under light microscopy (Zeiss Axiolmager M1 m, Carl Zeiss Microscopy, Thornwood, NY) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) for verification of indents for samples.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%