ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2014
A novel device for resistance-free biomechanical testing of the metaphysis of long bones.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Validation of a novel testing machine for the investigation of the biomechanical properties of lumbar vertebrae in an osteoporotic rat model.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2023Article
- Low-energy extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) improves metaphyseal fracture healing in an osteoporotic rat model.PloS one · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBiomechanical testing is an essential component of bone research. In order to test the metaphyseal region of long bones, a typical location for the nowadays increasing field of osteoporotic bone changes, three-point bending and breaking test devices are suitable and widely used. The aim of our study was to increase the effectiveness of this method by using a newly developed ball-mounted platform design. This new design eliminates the negative effects of friction, present in previous studies, caused by the lengthening of the distal tibia along its diaphyseal axis while sliding over the surface of a fixed aluminum block.
methods70 tibiae of 35 twelve week old, female Sprague Dawley rats were separated into two groups for a metaphyseal bending/breaking test. Group 1 was made up of the rat's right tibiae, Group 2 of the left tibiae. Group 1 was tested on a solid metal block according to previously established testing devices whereas Group 2 was tested on the newly designed device: the resistance-free gliding, ball-mounted platform. Stiffness (N/mm), yield Load (N), and failure Load (N) were registered. In the evaluation of both testing procedures, the results of the right and left tibiae were compared according to the rat they originated from.
resultsStiffness (S) showed highly significant differences (p = 0.002) with 202.25 ± 27.010 N/mm SD (Group 1) and 184.66 ± 35.875 N/mm SD (Group 2). Yield Load (yL) showed highly significant differences (p < 0.001) with 55.31 ± 13.074 N SD (Group1) and 37.17 ± 12.464 N SD (Group2). The mean failure Load (fL) did not differ significantly (p < 0.231) between Group 1: 81.34 ± 11.972 N SD and Group 2: 79.63 ± 10.345 N SD.
conclusionsWe therefore conclude that, used in the three-point bending/breaking test, the mobile, ball-mounted platform device is able to efficiently eliminate the influence of friction in terms of stiffness and yield load. Failure Load was not affected. We suggest that the new ball-mounted platform device, when compared to other existing techniques, generates more accurate test results when used in the three-point bending/breaking test of the metaphysis of long bones.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.