Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T16:26:08.963Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of Aging on the Toughness of Human Cortical Bone: A Study from Nano to Macro Size-Scales

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2011

Ravi K. Nalla ,
Jamie J. Kruzic ,
John H. Kinney ,
Mehdi Balooch ,
Joel W. Ager III ,
Michael C. Martin ,
Antoni P. Tomsia  and
R. O. Ritchie
Ravi K. Nalla
Affiliation:
University of California, and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, U.S.A.
Jamie J. Kruzic
Affiliation:
University of California, and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, U.S.A.
John H. Kinney
Affiliation:
University of California, San Francisco, CA, U.S.A.
Mehdi Balooch
Affiliation:
University of California, San Francisco, CA, U.S.A.
Joel W. Ager III
Affiliation:
University of California, and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, U.S.A.
Michael C. Martin
Affiliation:
University of California, and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, U.S.A.
Antoni P. Tomsia
Affiliation:
University of California, and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, U.S.A.
R. O. Ritchie
Affiliation:
University of California, and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, U.S.A.
Get access

Abstract

Age-related deterioration of both the fracture properties and the architecture of bone, coupled with increased life expectancy, are factors leading to the increasing incidence of bone fracture in the elderly. In order to facilitate the development of treatments which counter this increased fracture risk, a thorough understanding of how fracture properties degrade with age is required. The present study describes ex vivo fracture experiments to quantitatively assess the effects of aging on the fracture toughness of human cortical bone in the longitudinal direction. Because cortical bone exhibits rising crack-growth resistance with crack extension, we depart from most previous studies by evaluating the toughness in terms of resistance-curve (R-curve) behavior, measured for bone taken from donors 34 to 99 years old. Using this approach, both the crack-initiation and crack-growth toughness are determined and are found to deteriorate with age; the initiation toughness decreases ∼40% from 40 to 100 years, while the growth toughness is effectively eliminated over the same age range. Evidence from x-ray synchrotron tomography is provided to support the hypothesis that the reduction in crack-growth toughness is associated primarily with a degradation in the degree of extrinsic toughening, in particular involving crack bridging at the microstructural level in the wake of the crack. Atomic force microscope-based nanoidentation of individual collagen fibers revealed changes at the collagen fibrillar level and deep-ultraviolet Raman spectroscopy showed that the cross-linking at the nanostructural level also changes with age. These results should provide for a better mechanistic understanding of the increased propensity for bone fracture with age.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 844: Symposium Y – Mechanical Properties of Bio-Inspired and Biological Materials , 2004 , Y8.10
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Heaney, R., Bone 33, 457 (2003).Google Scholar
2. Bonfield, W., J. Biomech. 20, 1071 (1987).Google Scholar
3. Currey, J. D., Brear, K. and Zioupos, P., J. Biomech. 29, 257 (1996).Google Scholar
4. Yeni, Y. N., Brown, C. U., Wang, Z. and Norman, T. L., Bone 21, 453 (1997).Google Scholar
5. Wang, X., Shen, X., Li, X. and Agrawal, C. M., Bone 31, 1 (2002).Google Scholar
6. Vashishth, D., Behiri, J. C. and Bonfield, W., J. Biomech. 30, 763 (1997).Google Scholar
7. Malik, C. L., Stover, S. M., Martin, R. B. and Gibeling, J. C., J. Biomech. 36, 191 (2003).Google Scholar
8. Pezzotti, G. and Sakakura, S., J. Biomech. 65A, 229 (2003).Google Scholar
9. Nalla, R. K., Kruzic, J. J. and Ritchie, R. O., Bone 34, 790 (2004).Google Scholar
10. Nalla, R. K., Kruzic, J. J., Kinney, J. H. and Ritchie, R. O., Biomater. 26, 217 (2005).Google Scholar
11. Knott, J. F., Fundamentals of fracture mechanics (Butterworth & Co., 1976).Google Scholar
12. Ritchie, R. O., Mater. Sci. Eng. 103, 15 (1988).Google Scholar
13. Evans, A. G., J. Am. Ceramic Soc. 73, 187 (1990).Google Scholar
14. Rho, J-Y., Kuhn-Spearing, L. and Zioupos, P., Med. Eng. Physics 20, 92 (1998).Google Scholar
15. Kinney, J. H. and Nichols, M. C., Annu. Rev. Mater. Sci. 22, 121 (1992).Google Scholar
16. Pharr, G. M., Oliver, W. C. and Brotzen, F. R., J. Mater. Res. 7, 613 (1992).Google Scholar
17. Nalla, R. K., Balooch, M., Ager III, J. W., Kruzic, J. J., Kinney, J. H. and Ritchie, R. O., Acta Biomater. 1, 31 (2005).Google Scholar
18. Paschalis, E. P., Verdelis, K., Doty, S. B., Boskey, A. L., Mendelsohn, R. and Yamauchi, M., J. Bone Miner. Res. 16, 1821 (2001).Google Scholar
19. Carden, A. and Morris, M. D., J. Biomed. Opt. 5, 259 (2000).Google Scholar
20. Bandekar, J., Biochimica et Biophysica Acta. 1120, 123 (1992).Google Scholar