ArticleExperimental mechanics2021
Microindentation of cartilage before and after articular loading in a bioreactor: assessment of length-scale dependency using two analysis methods.
Article in Experimental mechanics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Effects of kinematic and kinetic variables on articular cartilage mechanical and biological properties.Osteoarthritis and cartilage · 2025Article
- Development of a computational-experimental framework for enhanced mechanical characterization and cross-species comparison of the articular cartilage superficial zone.Computer methods in biomechanics and biomedical engineering · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Microindentation is a technique with high sensitivity and spatial resolution, allowing for measurements at small-scale indentation depths. Various methods of indentation analysis to determine output properties exist. Objective: Here, the Oliver-Pharr Method and Hertzian Method were compared for stiffness analyses of articular cartilage at varying length-scales before and after bioreactor loading. Methods: Using three different conospherical tips with varying radii (20, 100, 793.75 μm), a bioreactor-indenter workflow was performed on cartilage explants to assess changes in stiffness due to articular loading. For all data, both the Oliver-Pharr Method and Hertzian Method were applied for indentation analysis. Results: The reduced moduli calculated by the Hertzian Method were found to be similar to those of the Oliver-Pharr Method when the 20 μm tip size was used. The reduced moduli calculated using the Hertzian Method were found to be consistent across the varying length-scales, whereas for the Oliver-Pharr Method, adhesion/suction led to the largest tip exhibiting an increased average reduced modulus compared to the two smaller tips. Loading induced stiffening of articular cartilage was observed consistently, regardless of tip size or indentation analysis applied. Conclusions: Overall, geometric linearity is preserved across all tip sizes for the Hertzian Method and may be assumed for the two smaller tip sizes using the Oliver-Pharr Method. These findings further validate the previously described stiffening response of the superficial zone of cartilage after articular loading and demonstrate that the finding is length-scale independent.
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.