In vivo bone strain and bone functional adaptation.
Mechanistic interpretations of bone cross-sectional shapes are based on the paradigm of shape optimization such that bone offers maximum mechanical resistance with a minimum of material. Recent in vivo strain studies (Demes et al., Am J Phys Anthropol 106 (1998) 87-100, Am J Phys Anthropol 116 (2001) 257-265; Lieberman et al., Am J Phys Anthropol 123 (2004) 156-171) have questioned these interpretations by demonstrating that long bones diaphyses are not necessarily bent in planes in which they offer maximum resistance to bending. Potential limitations of these in vivo studies have been pointed out by Ruff et al. (Am J Phys Anthropol 129 (2006) 484-498). It is demonstrated here that two loading scenarios, asymmetric bending and buckling, would indeed not lead to correct predictions of loads from strain. It is also shown that buckling is of limited relevance for many primate long bones. This challenges a widely held view that circular bone cross sections make loading directions unpredictable for bones which is based on a buckling load model. Asymmetric bending is a potentially confounding factor for bones with directional differences in principal area moments (I(max) > I(min)). Mathematical corrections are available and should be applied to determine the bending axis in such cases. It is concluded that loads can be reliably extrapolated from strains. More strain studies are needed to improve our understanding of the relationships between activities, bone loading regimes associated with them, and the cross-sectional geometry of bones.
Demes
Brigitte
B
Department of Anatomical Sciences, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794-8081, USA. bdemes@ms.cc.sunysb.edu
D000222:Adaptation, Physiological; D000818:Animals; D005269:Femur / Q000033:anatomy & histology* / Q000502:physiology; D008954:Models, Biological; D011323:Primates / Q000033:anatomy & histology* / Q000502:physiology; D013314:Stress, Mechanical; D016474:Weight-Bearing