title: Differences in the mechanical properties of calcaneal artificial specimens, fresh frozen specimens, and embalmed specimens in experimental testing.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Artificial calcanei, fresh-frozen cadaver specimens, and embalmed cadaver specimens were compared in experimental testing under biocompatible loading to clarify the biocompatibility of artificial calcaneal specimens for implant testing.
  
  
  METHODS
  Two different artificial calcaneal bone models (Sawbone, Pacific Research Laboratories, Vashon, WA, and Synbone, Synbone Inc., Davos, Switzerland), embalmed cadaver calcaneal specimens (bone density, 313.1 +/- 40.9 g/cm2; age, 43.8 +/- 7.9 years), and fresh-frozen cadaver calcanei (bone density, 238.5 +/- 30.0 g/cm2; age, 44.4 +/- 8.2 years) were used for testing. Seven specimens of each model or cadaver type were tested. A mechanical testing machine (Zwick Inc., Ulm, Germany) was used for loading and measurements. Cyclic loading (preload 20 N, load was increased every 100 cycles by 100 N from 1,000 to 2,500 N, 0.5 mm/s) and load to failure (0.5 mm/s) were performed. The loads were applied through an artificial talus in a physiological loading direction. The displacement of the posterior facet in the primary loading direction was measured.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The four different specimen groups showed different stability and different displacement in the primary loading direction during cyclic loading. The variation of the maximal displacement in the primary loading direction for the entire cyclic loading was higher in artificial specimens than in the cadaver specimens.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Artificial calcanei (Sawbone, Synbone) showed different biomechanical characteristics than cadaver bones (embalmed and fresh-frozen) in this experimental setup with biocompatible cyclic loading. These results do not support the use of artificial calcanei for biomechanical implant testing. Fresh-frozen and embalmed specimens seem to be equally adequate for mechanical testing. The low variation of mechanical strength in the unpaired cadaver specimens suggests that the use of PAIRED specimens is not necessary.
authors.forename: Stefan
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Zech
authors.forename: Thomas
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Goesling
authors.forename: Stefan
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Hankemeier
authors.forename: Karsten
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Knobloch
authors.forename: Jens
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Geerling
authors.forename: Kristof
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Schultz-Brunn
authors.forename: Christian
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Krettek
authors.forename: Martinus
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Richter
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D001696:Biomechanical Phenomena; D002102:Cadaver; D002111:Calcaneus / Q000033:anatomy & histology / Q000502:physiology*; D004615:Embalming; D005615:Freezing; D006801:Humans; D008422:Materials Testing / Q000379:methods*; D008953:Models, Anatomic; D019736:Prostheses and Implants