Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Calcified Tissue International 3/2017

01-03-2017 | Original Research

Tomography-Based Quantification of Regional Differences in Cortical Bone Surface Remodeling and Mechano-Response

Authors: Annette I. Birkhold, Hajar Razi, Georg N. Duda, Sara Checa, Bettina M. Willie

Published in: Calcified Tissue International | Issue 3/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Bone has an adaptive capacity to maintain structural integrity. However, there seems to be a heterogeneous cortical (re)modeling response to loading at different regions within the same bone, which may lead to inconsistent findings since most studies analyze only one region. It remains unclear if the local mechanical environment is responsible for this heterogeneous response and whether both formation and resorption are affected. Thus, we compared the formation and resorptive response to in vivo loading and the strain environment at two commonly analyzed regions in the mouse tibia, the mid-diaphysis and proximal metaphysis. We quantified cortical surface (re)modeling by tracking changes between geometrically aligned consecutive in vivo micro-tomography images (time lapse 15 days). We investigated the local mechanical strain environment using finite element analyses. The relationship between mechanical stimuli and surface (re)modeling was examined by sub-dividing the mid-diaphysis and proximal metaphysis into 32 sub-regions. In response to loading, metaphyseal cortical bone (re)modeled predominantly at the periosteal surface, whereas diaphyseal (re)modeling was more pronounced at the endocortical surface. Furthermore, different set points and slopes of the relationship between engendered strains and remodeling response were found for the endosteal and periosteal surfaces at the metaphyseal and diaphyseal regions. Resorption was correlated with strain at the endocortical, but not the periosteal surfaces, whereas, formation correlated with strain at all surfaces, except at the metaphyseal periosteal surface. Therefore, besides mechanical stimuli, other non-mechanical factors are likely driving regional differences in adaptation. Studies investigating adaptation to loading or other treatments should consider region-specific (re)modeling differences.
Literature
3.
go back to reference Hsieh YF, Robling AG, Ambrosius WT et al (2001) Mechanical loading of diaphyseal bone in vivo: the strain threshold for an osteogenic response varies with location. JBMR 16(12):2291–2297CrossRef Hsieh YF, Robling AG, Ambrosius WT et al (2001) Mechanical loading of diaphyseal bone in vivo: the strain threshold for an osteogenic response varies with location. JBMR 16(12):2291–2297CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Rubin C, Turner AS, Mallinckrodt C et al (2002) Mechanical strain, induced noninvasively in the high-frequency domain, is anabolic to cancellous bone, but not cortical bone. Bone 30(3):445–452CrossRefPubMed Rubin C, Turner AS, Mallinckrodt C et al (2002) Mechanical strain, induced noninvasively in the high-frequency domain, is anabolic to cancellous bone, but not cortical bone. Bone 30(3):445–452CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Willie BM, Birkhold AI, Razi H et al (2013) Diminished response to in vivo mechanical loading in trabecular and not cortical bone in adulthood of female C57Bl/6 mice coincides with a reduction in deformation to load. Bone 55(2):335–346. doi:10.1016/j.bone.2013.04.023 CrossRefPubMed Willie BM, Birkhold AI, Razi H et al (2013) Diminished response to in vivo mechanical loading in trabecular and not cortical bone in adulthood of female C57Bl/6 mice coincides with a reduction in deformation to load. Bone 55(2):335–346. doi:10.​1016/​j.​bone.​2013.​04.​023 CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Hamrick MW, Skedros JG, Pennington C et al (2006) Increased osteogenic response to exercise in metaphyseal versus diaphyseal cortical bone. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact 6(3):258–263PubMed Hamrick MW, Skedros JG, Pennington C et al (2006) Increased osteogenic response to exercise in metaphyseal versus diaphyseal cortical bone. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact 6(3):258–263PubMed
11.
go back to reference Bertram JE, Biewener AA (1988) Bone curvature: sacrificing strength for load predictability. J Theor Biol 131(1):75–92CrossRefPubMed Bertram JE, Biewener AA (1988) Bone curvature: sacrificing strength for load predictability. J Theor Biol 131(1):75–92CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Lieberman DE (1996) How and why humans grow thin skulls: experimental evidence for systemic cortical robusticity. Am J Phys Anthropol 101(2):217–236CrossRefPubMed Lieberman DE (1996) How and why humans grow thin skulls: experimental evidence for systemic cortical robusticity. Am J Phys Anthropol 101(2):217–236CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Alexandre C, Vico L (1996) Adaptation of the skeleton to microgravity. Nouvelle Revue Aeronautique Astronautique 4:34–37 Alexandre C, Vico L (1996) Adaptation of the skeleton to microgravity. Nouvelle Revue Aeronautique Astronautique 4:34–37
18.
go back to reference Currey JD (2002) Bones: structure and mechanics: chapter 11: modeling and reconstruction. Princeton University Press, Princeton Currey JD (2002) Bones: structure and mechanics: chapter 11: modeling and reconstruction. Princeton University Press, Princeton
19.
go back to reference Rubin CT, Lanyon LE (1985) Regulation of bone mass by mechanical strain magnitude. Calcif Tissue Int 37(4):411–417CrossRefPubMed Rubin CT, Lanyon LE (1985) Regulation of bone mass by mechanical strain magnitude. Calcif Tissue Int 37(4):411–417CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Mosley JR, March BM, Lynch J et al (1997) Strain magnitude related changes in whole bone architecture in growing rats. Bone 20(3):191–198CrossRefPubMed Mosley JR, March BM, Lynch J et al (1997) Strain magnitude related changes in whole bone architecture in growing rats. Bone 20(3):191–198CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Carter DR (1982) The relationship between in vivo strains and cortical bone remodeling. Crit Rev Biomed Eng 8(1):1–28PubMed Carter DR (1982) The relationship between in vivo strains and cortical bone remodeling. Crit Rev Biomed Eng 8(1):1–28PubMed
23.
go back to reference Skerry TM (2006) One mechanostat or many? Modifications of the site-specific response of bone to mechanical loading by nature and nurture. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact 6(2):122–127PubMed Skerry TM (2006) One mechanostat or many? Modifications of the site-specific response of bone to mechanical loading by nature and nurture. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact 6(2):122–127PubMed
25.
go back to reference Judex S, Gross TS, Zernicke RF (1997) Strain gradients correlate with sites of exercise-induced bone-forming surfaces in the adult skeleton. J Bone Miner Res 12(10):1737–1745CrossRefPubMed Judex S, Gross TS, Zernicke RF (1997) Strain gradients correlate with sites of exercise-induced bone-forming surfaces in the adult skeleton. J Bone Miner Res 12(10):1737–1745CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference Razi H, Birkhold AI, Weinkamer R et al (2015) Aging leads to a dysregulation in mechanically driven bone formation and resorption. JBMR 30(10):1864–1873. doi:10.1002/jbmr.2528 CrossRef Razi H, Birkhold AI, Weinkamer R et al (2015) Aging leads to a dysregulation in mechanically driven bone formation and resorption. JBMR 30(10):1864–1873. doi:10.​1002/​jbmr.​2528 CrossRef
27.
go back to reference O’Connor JA, Lanyon LE, MacFie H (1982) The influence of strain rate on adaptive bone remodelling. J Biomech 15(10):767–781CrossRefPubMed O’Connor JA, Lanyon LE, MacFie H (1982) The influence of strain rate on adaptive bone remodelling. J Biomech 15(10):767–781CrossRefPubMed
28.
go back to reference Brown TD, Pedersen GM et al (1990) Toward an identification of mechanical parameters initiating periosteal remodeling—a combined experimental and analytical approach. J Biomech 23(9):893–905CrossRefPubMed Brown TD, Pedersen GM et al (1990) Toward an identification of mechanical parameters initiating periosteal remodeling—a combined experimental and analytical approach. J Biomech 23(9):893–905CrossRefPubMed
29.
go back to reference Wallace IJ, Tommasini SM, Judex S et al (2012) Genetic variations and physical activity as determinants of limb bone morphology: an experimental approach using a mouse model. Am J Phys Anthropol 148(1):24–35. doi:10.1002/ajpa.22028 CrossRefPubMed Wallace IJ, Tommasini SM, Judex S et al (2012) Genetic variations and physical activity as determinants of limb bone morphology: an experimental approach using a mouse model. Am J Phys Anthropol 148(1):24–35. doi:10.​1002/​ajpa.​22028 CrossRefPubMed
30.
go back to reference Farber CR, Kelly SA, Baruch E et al (2011) Identification of quantitative trait loci influencing skeletal architecture in mice: emergence of Cdh11 as a primary candidate gene regulating femoral morphology. JBMR 26(9):2174–2183. doi:10.1002/jbmr.436 CrossRef Farber CR, Kelly SA, Baruch E et al (2011) Identification of quantitative trait loci influencing skeletal architecture in mice: emergence of Cdh11 as a primary candidate gene regulating femoral morphology. JBMR 26(9):2174–2183. doi:10.​1002/​jbmr.​436 CrossRef
35.
go back to reference Cummings SR, Karpf DB, Harris F et al (2002) Improvement in spine bone density and reduction in risk of vertebral fractures during treatment with antiresorptive drugs. Am J Med 112(4):281–289CrossRefPubMed Cummings SR, Karpf DB, Harris F et al (2002) Improvement in spine bone density and reduction in risk of vertebral fractures during treatment with antiresorptive drugs. Am J Med 112(4):281–289CrossRefPubMed
36.
37.
go back to reference Faulkner KG (2000) Bone matters: are density increases necessary to reduce fracture risk? JBMR 15(2):183–187CrossRef Faulkner KG (2000) Bone matters: are density increases necessary to reduce fracture risk? JBMR 15(2):183–187CrossRef
44.
go back to reference Dempster DW, Compston JE, Drezner MK et al (2013) Standardized nomenclature, symbols, and units for bone histomorphometry: a 2012 update of the report of the ASBMR Histomorphometry Nomenclature Committee. J Bone Mine Res 28(1):2–17. doi:10.1002/jbmr.1805 CrossRef Dempster DW, Compston JE, Drezner MK et al (2013) Standardized nomenclature, symbols, and units for bone histomorphometry: a 2012 update of the report of the ASBMR Histomorphometry Nomenclature Committee. J Bone Mine Res 28(1):2–17. doi:10.​1002/​jbmr.​1805 CrossRef
46.
go back to reference Pødenphant J, Engel U (1987) Regional variations in histomorphometric bone dynamics from the skeleton of an osteoporotic woman. Calcif Tissue Int 40(4):184–188CrossRefPubMed Pødenphant J, Engel U (1987) Regional variations in histomorphometric bone dynamics from the skeleton of an osteoporotic woman. Calcif Tissue Int 40(4):184–188CrossRefPubMed
49.
go back to reference Cadet ER, Gafni RI, McCarthy EF et al (2003) Mechanisms responsible for longitudinal growth of the cortex: coalescence of trabecular bone into cortical bone. J Bone Joint Joint Surg 85A(9):1739–1748CrossRef Cadet ER, Gafni RI, McCarthy EF et al (2003) Mechanisms responsible for longitudinal growth of the cortex: coalescence of trabecular bone into cortical bone. J Bone Joint Joint Surg 85A(9):1739–1748CrossRef
50.
go back to reference Rosner B (1995) Fundamentals of biostatistics. Duxbury Press, Pacific Grove, p 507 Rosner B (1995) Fundamentals of biostatistics. Duxbury Press, Pacific Grove, p 507
Metadata
Title
Tomography-Based Quantification of Regional Differences in Cortical Bone Surface Remodeling and Mechano-Response
Authors
Annette I. Birkhold
Hajar Razi
Georg N. Duda
Sara Checa
Bettina M. Willie
Publication date
01-03-2017
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Calcified Tissue International / Issue 3/2017
Print ISSN: 0171-967X
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0827
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00223-016-0217-4

Other articles of this Issue 3/2017

Calcified Tissue International 3/2017 Go to the issue

Letter to the Editor

Letter to the Editor