Small-scale mechanical testing: Applications to bone biomechanics and mechanobiology

Conference paper
Part of the Conference Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Mechanics Series book series (CPSEMS)

Abstract

Mechanical testing of biologic tissues requires flexible testing machines to accommodate a variety of testing needs. This paper will illustrate how a cost-effective testing platform was developed to accommodate a wide range of biomechanical testing applications including bone bending and torsion testing, soft tissue tensile testing and bone cell stimulation via fluid shear and substrate deformation. The goal is to demonstrate to the reader that unique issues arise when testing biologic tissues such as controlling for environment and maintaining specimen viability, but with proper care relatively reproducible and accurate testing results can be obtained with a simple, multi-purpose platform.

Keywords

Fatigue Hydrate Torque Cage Rubber 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Currey JD. Measurement of the mechanical properties of bone. A recent history. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467:1948–1954, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Currey JD. Bones: Structure and mechanics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2002.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cowin SC, ed. Bone Mechanics Handbook, 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2001.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    An YH, Draughn RA eds. Mechanical testing of bone and the bone-implant interface. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2000.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Turner CH, Burr DB. Basic biomechanical measurements of bone: a tutorial. Bone 14:595–608, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Saunders MM, Donahue HJ. Development of a cost-effective loading machine for biomechanical evaluation of mouse transgenic models. Med Engr Phys 26:595–603, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Saunders MM, Burger RB, Kalantari B, Nichols AD, Witman C. Development of a cost-effective torsional unit for small-scale biomechanical testing. Med Engr Phys (in press), 2010.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brodt MD, Ellis CB, Silva MJ. Growing C57B1/6 mice increase whole bone mechanical properties by increasing geometric and material properties. J Bone Miner Res 14(12):2159–2166, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Silva MJ, Ulrich SR. In vitro sodium exposure decreases torsional and bending strength and increases ductility of mouse femora. J Biomech 33:231–234, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nazarian A, Bauernschmitt M, Eberle C, Meier D, Müller R, Snyder BD. Design and validation of a testing system to assess torsional cancellous bone failure in conjunction with time-lapsed micro-computed tomographic imaging. J Biomech, 41: 3496–3501, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nazarian A, Entezari V, Vartanians V, Muller R, Snyder BD. An improved method to assess torsional properties of rodent long bones. J Biomech 42: 1720–1725, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Quinn R. Comparing rat’s to human’s age: How old is my rat in people years? Nutrition 21:775–777, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Weibull W. A statistical distribution function of wide applicability. J Appl Mech 18:293–297, 1951.MATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bažant ZP, Pang SD. Mechanics-based statistics of failure risk of quasibrittle structures and size effect on safety factors. Proc Nat Acad Sci 103:9434–9439, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Brown TD. Techniques for mechanical stimulation of cells in vitro: A review. J Biomech 33(1):3–14, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Piekarski K, Munro M. Transport mechanism operating between blood supply and osteocytes in long bones. Nature 269:80–82, 1977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bonewald LF. Osteocytes as dynamic multifunctional cells. Ann NY Acad Sci 1116:281–290, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bellido T. Summary – Osteocyte control of bone formation via Sost/sclerostin. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact 6(4):360–363, 2006.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ott SM. Website link: http://depts.washington.edu/bonebio/ASBMRed/growth.html (Bone remodeling)
  20. 20.
    Jacobs CR, Yellowley CE, Davis BR, Zhou Z, Donahue HJ. Differential effect of steady versus oscillating flow on bone cells. J Biomech 31: 969–976, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Saunders MM, Taylor AF, Du C, Zhou Z, Pellegrini VD Jr, Donahue HJ. Mechanical stimulation effects on functional end effectors in osteoblastic MG-63 cells. J Biomech 39(8):1419–1427, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Buhl KM, Jacobs CR, Turner RT, Evans GL, Farrell PA, Donahue HJ. Aged bone displays an increased responsiveness to low-intensity resistance exercise. J Appl Physiol 90:1359–1364, 2001.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Turner CH, Akhter MP, Raab DM, Kimmel DB, Recker RR. A noninvasive in vivo model for studying strain adaptive bone remodeling. Bone 12, 73–79, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hillam RA, Skerry TM. Inhibition of bone resorption and stimulation of formation by mechanical loading of the modeling rat ulna in vivo. J Bone Miner Res 10(5):683–689, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gross TS, Srinivasan S, Liu CC, Clemens TL, Bain SD. Non-invasive loading of the murine tibia: an in vivo model for the study of mechanotransduction. J Bone Miner Res 17(3):493–501, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Saunders MM, Simmerman LA, Reed GL, Sharkey NA, Taylor AF. Biomimetic bone mechanotransduction modeling in neonatal rat femur organ cultures: Structural verification of proof of concept. Biomech Model Mechanobiol, 2010. (published online 2/19/10).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Van Sickels J. College of Dentistry, University of Kentucky. (personal correspondence), 2009.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Biomedical EngineeringUniversity of KentuckyLexingtonUK

Personalised recommendations