Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T06:20:49.523Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Collagen Content and Organization Relate to Bone Nanomechanical Properties

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2011

Eve Donnelly ,
Rebecca M. Williams ,
Shefford P. Baker  and
Marjolein C. H. van der Meulen
Eve Donnelly
Affiliation:
Sibley School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Cornell UniversityIthaca, NY
Rebecca M. Williams
Affiliation:
Department of Applied and Engineering Physics, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY
Shefford P. Baker
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY
Marjolein C. H. van der Meulen
Affiliation:
Sibley School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Cornell UniversityIthaca, NY Musculoskeletal Integrity Program, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY
Get access

Abstract

Cancellous bone plays an important load-bearing role in the skeleton, yet relatively little is known about the microstructure-mechanical property relationships of the tissue at the sub-10 [.proportional]m level. Cancellous tissue is characterized by a layered microstructure with variable proportions of collagen and mineral. The lamellar material is substantially stiffer than the interlamellar material at the nanomechanical level. However, the microstructural origin of the observed differences in mechanical properties of these structures has not been investigated. In this study, second harmonic generation microscopy was used to examine collagen in human vertebral cancellous bone. At the same location in the tissue, nanoindentation was used to assess the indentation modulus of lamellar and interlamellar bone. The stiff lamellae corresponded to areas of highly ordered, collagen-rich material, while the compliant interlamellar regions corresponded to areas of unoriented or collagen-poor material. The lamellar bone was approximately 30% stiffer and contained approximately 50% more oriented collagen than the interlamellar bone. These observed differences in the mechanical properties and collagen content and organization of lamellar and interlamellar tissue are consistent with previous scanning electron microscopy studies showing greater mineral and collagen content and organization in lamellar bone. Given the well-known coupling between collagen and mineral in bone tissue, the mineral distribution may mirror that of the aligned collagen. However, similar measurements of local variations in mineral content are needed to confirm this hypothesis and may provide additional insights into the tissue nanomechanical behavior.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 874: Symposium l – Structure and Mechanical Behavior of Biological Materials , 2005 , L7.5
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

1. Ulrich, D., Rietbergen, B. van, Laib, A., and Rüegsegger, P., Bone 25, 55 (1999).Google Scholar
2. Wehrli, F. W., Gomberg, B. R., Saha, P. K., Song, H. K., Hwang, S. N., and Snyder, P. J., J Bone Miner Res 16, 1520 (2001).Google Scholar
3. Landis, W. J., Bone 16, 533 (1995).Google Scholar
4. Rindby, A., Voglis, P., and Engstrom, P., Biomaterials 19, 2083 (1998).Google Scholar
5. Weiner, S. and Traub, W., FEBS Lett 206, 262 (1986).Google Scholar
6. Donnelly, E., Baker, S. P., Boskey, A. L., and Meulen, M. C. H. van der, Mater Res Soc Symp Proc 823, W8.5 (2004).Google Scholar
7. Hengsberger, S., Kulik, A., and Zysset, P., Bone 30, 178 (2002).Google Scholar
8. Paschalis, E. P., Betts, F., DiCarlo, E., Mendelsohn, R., and Boskey, A. L., Calcif Tissue Int 61, 487 (1997).Google Scholar
9. Burstein, A., Zika, J., Heiple, K., and Klein, L., J Bone Joint Surg 57A, 956 (1975).Google Scholar
10. Hobdell, M. H. and Boyde, A., Z Zellforsch 94, 487 (1969).Google Scholar
11. Rho, J.-Y., Roy, M. E., Tsui, T. Y., and Pharr, G. M., J Biomed Mater Res 45, 48 (1999).Google Scholar
12. Roy, M. E., Rho, J.-Y., Tsui, T. Y., Evans, N. D., and Pharr, G. M., J Biomed Mater Res 44, 191 (1999).Google Scholar
13. Boyde, A. and Hobdell, M. H., Z Zellforsch 93, 213 (1969).Google Scholar
14. Oliver, W. C. and Pharr, G. M., J Mater Res 7, 1564 (1992).Google Scholar
15. Williams, R. M., Zipfel, W. R., and Webb, W. W., Biophys J 88, 1377 (2005).Google Scholar
16. Moreaux, L., Sandre, O., and Mertz, J., J Opt Soc Am B 17, 1685 (2000).Google Scholar
17. Boyd, R. W., Nonlinear Optics, 2nd ed. (Academic Press, Amsterdam, 2003).Google Scholar
18. Rho, J.-Y. and Pharr, G. M., J Mater Sci Mater Med 10, 485 (1999).Google Scholar
19. Glimcher, M. J., Rev Mod Phys 13, 359 (1959).Google Scholar
20. Donnelly, E., Xiao, C., Baker, S. P., Mendelsohn, R., Boskey, A. L., and Meulen, M. C. H. van der, Trans Orthop Res Soc 30, 672 (2005).Google Scholar