ArticleMedical & biological engineering & computing2019
Transversely isotropic and isotropic material considerations in determining the mechanical response of geometrically accurate bovine tibia bone.
Article in Medical & biological engineering & computing, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Mapping cortical bone stiffness and mineralization from endosteal to periosteal surfaces of bovine mid-diaphyseal femur.Journal of bone and mineral metabolism · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In finite element method (FEM) simulations of the mechanical response of bones, proper selection of stiffness versus density (E-ρ) formulae for bone constituents is necessary for obtaining accurate results. A considerable number of such formulae can be found in the biomechanics' literature covering both cortical and cancellous constituents. For determining the first and second modal frequencies (in both cranial-caudal and medial-lateral planes) of bovine tibia bone, this work assembled and numerically tested 22 isotropic and 21 orthotropic stiffness-density formulae combinations (cases). To accurately reproduce bone geometry, anatomical 3D models were generated from computed tomography (CT) scans. By matching the bone's digital mass to its actual mass, cortical and cancellous constituents were faithfully segmented by utilizing suitable values of three variables: (1) critical cutoff Hounsfield unit (HU) values, (2) cutoff density value, and (3) utilized number of sub-materials. Consequently, a balanced distribution of finite elements was generated with stiffness values congruent with their cancellous or cortical demarcations. Of the considered 22 isotropic formulae cases and 21 orthotropic (reduced to transversely isotropic) cases, only few yielded accurate frequency estimates. For verifying the accuracy of the solutions emanating from the various formulae, experimental vibration tests of corresponding mode frequencies and shapes (ProSig©) were conducted. When compared with the measured experimental frequency values, the most accurate isotropic formulae yielded numerical estimates of + 0.95% and + 10.65% for the first and second cranial-caudal (C-C) frequencies, respectively. The formulae yielding most accurate estimates also proved successful in estimating frequencies of a second tibia bone yielding numerical estimates within + 4.75% and + 1.88% of the said mode frequencies. For the transversely isotropic material assignment, the closest case scenario computed numerical estimates with a percentage difference of + 2.05% and + 9.36% for the first and second cranial-caudal (C-C) frequencies, respectively. Graphical abstract Mode shapes (left) 1 and (right) 2 for transversely isotropic case 15 T (Bone A): (a) cranial-caudal and (b) medial-lateral plane.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31377963What 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.