Modeling of the human mandibular periosteum material properties and comparison with the calvarial periosteum

  • Natacha Kadlub
  • Alexandre Debelmas
  • Jeremy DallardEmail author
  • Arnaud Picard
  • Jean Boisson
Original Paper


Knowledge of mandibular periosteum mechanical properties is fundamental for understanding its role in craniofacial growth, in trauma and bone regeneration. There is a lack in the literature regarding mechanical behavior of the human periosteum, including both experimental and modeling aspects. The proposed study involves tensile tests of periosteum samples from different locations including two locations of human mandibular periosteum: lingual and vestibular, compared with samples from various locations of the calvarial periosteum. We propose to analyze the tensile response of the mandibular periosteum using a model, initially applied on the skin, and based on a structural approach involving the mechanical properties of the corrugation of the collagen. Two different approaches for the model parameters’ identification are proposed: (1) identification from experimental curve fitting and (2) identification from histological study. This approach allows us to compare parameters extracted from the traction test fitting to structural parameters measured on periosteum histological slices. Concerning experimental aspects, we showed significant differences, in terms of stiffness, between calvarial and mandibular periostea. (The mean final stiffness is \(E_{\mathrm{c,mand}}= 18\,\text {MPa}\) for the mandible versus \(E_{\mathrm{c,calv}}= 70.1\) for the calvaria.) About modeling, we succeed to capture the correct mechanical behavior for the periosteum, and the statistical analysis showed that certain parameters from the geometric data and traction data are significantly comparable (e.g., \(p=0.3\) for \(E_{\mathrm{c}}\)). However, we also observed a discrepancy between these two approaches for the elongation at which the fibril has become straight (\(p=0.0001\)).


Elastic moduli Young's moduli Periosteum Collagen Traction test 



This study was funded by the Prematuration Project IDEX Paris Saclay. The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. Experimentations were supported by the Strasbourg Research Osteosynthesis Group, Coline Association, AFIF SSR/PAG Association and NARTMF association. Cadaveric experiment was supported by l’Ecole de chirurgie de l’APHP.


  1. Allen MR, Hock JM, Burr DB (2004) Periosteum: biology, regulation, and response to osteoporosis therapies. Bone 35(5):1003–1012. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Altendorf H, Decencière E, Jeulin D, Peixoto PDS, Deniset-Besseau A, Angelini E, Mosser G, Schanne-Klein MC (2012) Imaging and 3d morphological analysis of collagen fibrils. J Microsc 247(2):161–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bertram JE, Polevoy Y, Cullinane DM (1998) Mechanics of avian fibrous periosteum: tensile and adhesion properties during growth. Bone 22(6):669–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Comninou M, Yannas IV (1976) Dependence of stress-strain nonlinearity of connective tissues on the geometry of collagen fibers. J Biomech 9(7):427–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dandekar K, Raju BI, Srinivasan MA (2003) 3-d finite-element models of human and monkey fingertips to investigate the mechanics of tactile sense. J Biomechan Eng 125(5):682–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Debelmas A, Picard A, Kadlub N, Boisson J (2018) Contribution of the periosteum to mandibular distraction. PLoS ONE 13(6):e099116. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dwek JR (2010) The periosteum: What is it, where is it, and what mimics it in its absence? Skelet Radiol 39(4):319–23. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ellender G, Feik SA, Carach BJ (1988) Periosteal structure and development in a rat caudal vertebra. J Anat 158:173–87Google Scholar
  9. Evans SF, Parent JB, Lasko CE, Zhen X, Knothe UR, Lemaire T, Knothe Tate ML (2013) Periosteum, bone’s “smart” bounding membrane, exhibits direction-dependent permeability. J Bone Min Res Off J Am Soc Bone Min Res 28(3):608–17. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eyre-Brook AL (1984) The periosteum: its function reassessed. Clin Orthop Rel Res 189:300–317Google Scholar
  11. Foolen J, van Donkelaar CC, Ito K (2011) Intracellular tension in periosteum/perichondrium cells regulates long bone growth. J Orthop Res Off Publ Orthop Res Soc 29(1):84–91. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grant CA, Brockwell DJ, Radford SE, Thomson NH (2009) Tuning the elastic modulus of hydrated collagen fibrils. Biophys J 97(11):2985–2992. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Heim AJ, Matthews WG, Koob TJ (2006) Determination of the elastic modulus of native collagen fibrils via radial indentation. Appl Phys Lett 89(18):181902. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jacquet E, Chambert J, Pauchot J, Sandoz P (2017) Intra- and inter-individual variability in the mechanical properties of the human skin from in vivo measurements on 20 volunteers. Skin Res Technol 23(4):491–499. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Killaars R, Penha TRL, Heuts EM, van der Hulst R, Piatkowski AA (2015) Biomechanical properties of the skin in patients with breast cancer-related lymphedema compared to healthy individuals. Lymphat Res Biol 13(3):215–221. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Liu Z, Yeung K (2007) The preconditioning and stress relaxation of skin tissue. J Biomed Pharm Eng 2(1):22–28Google Scholar
  17. Lynch B, Bancelin S, Bonod-Bidaud C, Gueusquin JB, Ruggiero F, Schanne-Klein MC, Allain JM (2017) A novel microstructural interpretation for the biomechanics of mouse skin derived from multiscale characterization. Acta Biomater 50:302–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Manschot JF, Brakkee AJ (1986) The measurement and modelling of the mechanical properties of human skin in vivo-II. The model. J Biomechan 19(7):517–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McBride SH, Evans SF, Knothe Tate ML (2011) Anisotropic mechanical properties of ovine femoral periosteum and the effects of cryopreservation. J Biomechan 44(10):1954–1959. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Miller KS, Edelstein L, Connizzo BK, Soslowsky LJ (2012) Effect of preconditioning and stress relaxation on local collagen fiber re-alignment: inhomogeneous properties of rat supraspinatus tendon. J Biomechan Eng 134(3):031007. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Popowics TE, Zhu Z, Herring SW (2002) Mechanical properties of the periosteum in the pig, Sus scrofa. Arch Oral Biol 47(10):733–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sommer G, Eder M, Kovacs L, Pathak H, Bonitz L, Mueller C, Regitnig P, Holzapfel GA (2013) Multiaxial mechanical properties and constitutive modeling of human adipose tissue: a basis for preoperative simulations in plastic and reconstructive surgery. Acta Biomater 9(11):9036–9048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Strasser S, Zink A, Janko M, Heckl WM, Thalhammer S (2007) Structural investigations on native collagen type I fibrils using AFM. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 354(1):27–32. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Verstraete MA, Van Der Straeten C, De Lepeleere B, Opsomer GJ, Van Hoof T, Victor J (2015) Impact of drying and thiel embalming on mechanical properties of achilles tendons. Clin Anat 28(8):994–1001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Weiss JA, Maker BN, Govindjee S (1996) Finite element implementation of incompressible, transversely isotropic hyperelasticity. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 135(1–2):107–128CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. Wenger MP, Bozec L, Horton MA, Mesquida P (2007) Mechanical properties of collagen fibrils. Biophys J 93(4):1255–1263. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wong WLE, Joyce TJ, Goh KL (2016) Resolving the viscoelasticity and anisotropy dependence of the mechanical properties of skin from a porcine model. Biomechan Model Mechanobiol 15(2):433–446. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Yiannakopoulos CK, Kanellopoulos AD, Trovas GP, Dontas IA, Lyritis GP (2007) The biomechanical capacity of the periosteum in intact long bones. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 128(1):117–120. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Yiannakopoulos CK, Kanellopoulos AD, Trovas GP, Dontas IA, Lyritis GP (2008) The biomechanical capacity of the periosteum in intact long bones. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 128(1):117–20. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Zeng YJ, Xp Sun, Yang J, Wu Wh, Xu Xh, Yp Yan (2003) Mechanical properties of nasal fascia and periosteum. Clin Biomechan (Bristol Avon) 18(8):760–764CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Unit of Maxillofacial and Plastic Surgery, Necker Enfants MaladesParis DescartesParisFrance
  2. 2.UMEENSTA ParisPalaiseauFrance

Personalised recommendations