Estimation of Lacunar Permeability in Anatomical Regions of Femoral Cortex: Endocortical Versus Periosteal

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Advances in Engineering Design (FLAME 2022)

Abstract

Bone’s adaptation occurs in response to mechanical loads. In vivo experimental studies explained that cortical bone envelopes (periosteal and endocortical) and their anatomical regions (anterior, posterior, lateral, medial) experience differential loading-induced osteogenesis. It has always been a challenge to establish a computer model to precisely predict such non-uniform new bone formation at the cortex due to mechanobiological stimuli such as strain or canalicular fluid flow. Lacunar permeability governs canalicular fluid velocity magnitude in bone-cross section. Anatomical variations of permeability could be the reason of differential fluid flow response which causes distinct site-specific bone formation. Therefore, it is important to compute poromechanical properties which are required to compute flow distribution. Lacunar canalicular permeability of the periosteal and endosteal surfaces in different anatomical locations has not been well reported. Thus, this paper estimates the poromechanical properties of cortical bone specially the permeability at periosteal and endocortical envelopes in their different anatomical regions, i.e. medial, lateral, anterior and posterior. Nanoindentation technique in combination with poroelastic optimization technique was employed. The result indicates that the endocortical surface was found to be more permeable than periosteal surface. Moreover, medial and lateral sides were also found more permeable than the other two regions, namely anterior and posterior. A clear understanding on cortical bone permeability will help researchers to precisely simulate the site-specific osteogenesis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now
Chapter
EUR 29.95
Price includes VAT (Germany)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
EUR 128.39
Price includes VAT (Germany)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
EUR 171.19
Price includes VAT (Germany)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kumar R, Tiwari AK, Tripathi D, Mishra A (2022) Electromagnetic field induced alterations in fluid flow through lacuno-canalicular system of bone. Int J Mech Sci 217:107036

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Willie BM, Zimmermann EA, Vitienes I, Main RP, Komarova SV (2020) Bone adaptation: safety factors and load predictability in sha** skeletal form. Bone 131:115114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Lanyon LE, Rubin C (1984) Static vs dynamic loads as an influence on bone remodelling. J Biomech 17:897–905

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Tiwari AK, Prasad J (2016) Computer modelling of bone’s adaptation: the role of normal strain, shear strain and fluid flow. Biomech Model Mechanobiol 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10237-016-0824-z

  5. Srinivasan S, Weimer DA, Agans SC, Bain SD, Gross TS (2002) Low-Magnitude mechanical loading becomes osteogenic when rest is inserted between each load cycle. J Bone Miner Res 17:1613–1620

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Srinivasan S, Ausk BJ, Poliachik SL, Warner SE, Richardson TS, Gross TS (2007) Rest-inserted loading rapidly amplifies the response of bone to small increases in strain and load cycles. J Appl Physiol 102:1945–1952. https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00507.2006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Cullen D, Smith R, Akhter M (2001) Bone-loading response varies with strain magnitude and cycle number. J Appl Physiol 91:1971–1976

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Tiwari AK, Kumar R, Tripathi D, Badhyal S (2018) In silico modeling of bone adaptation to rest-inserted loading: strain energy density versus fluid flow as stimulus. J Theor Biol 446:110–127

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Kumar R, Tiwari AK, Tripathi D, Shrivas NV, Nizam F (2019) Canalicular fluid flow induced by loading waveforms: a comparative analysis. J Theor Biol 471:59–73

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Srinivasan S, Gross T (1999) Canalicular fluid flow in bone: a basis for bone formation at sites of minimal strain. 45th Ann Meet Orthop Res Soc Poster

    Google Scholar 

  11. Gardinier JD, Townend CW, Jen K-P, Wu Q, Duncan RL, Wang L (2010) In situ permeability measurement of the mammalian lacunar–canalicular system. Bone 46:1075–1081

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Wang B, Zhou X, Price C, Li W, Pan J, Wang L (2013) Quantifying load-induced solute transport and solute-matrix interaction within the osteocyte lacunar-canalicular system. J Bone Miner Res 28:1075–1086

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Wang L (2018) Solute transport in the bone lacunar-canalicular system (LCS). Curr Osteoporos Rep 16:32–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kumar R, Tiwari AK, Tripathi D, Sharma NN (2020) Signalling molecule transport analysis in lacunar–canalicular system. Biomech Model Mechanobiol 19:1879–1896

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Price C, Zhou X, Li W, Wang L (2011) Real-time measurement of solute transport within the lacunar-canalicular system of mechanically loaded bone: direct evidence for load-induced fluid flow. J Bone Miner Res 26:277–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Carriero A, Pereira A, Wilson A, Castagno S, Javaheri B, Pitsillides A, Marenzana M, Shefelbine S (2018) Spatial relationship between bone formation and mechanical stimulus within cortical bone: combining 3D fluorochrome map** and poroelastic finite element modelling. Bone Rep 8:72–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Birkhold AI, Razi H, Duda GN, Weinkamer R, Checa S, Willie BM (2016) The periosteal bone surface is less mechano-responsive than the endocortical. Sci Rep 6:23480

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Fritton SP, Weinbaum S (2009) Fluid and solute transport in bone: flow-induced mechanotransduction. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 41:347–374

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Kumar R, Tiwari AK, Sihota P, Tripathi D, Kumar N, Ahmad A, Ambwani S (2017) Investigation on viscoelastic properties of cortical surfaces using dynamic mechanical analysis. In: International conference on advances in thermal systems, materials and design engineering (ATSMDE2017)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kumar R, Tiwari AK, Tripathi D, Main RP, Kumar N, Sihota P, Ambwani S, Sharma NN (2021) Anatomical variations in cortical bone surface permeability: tibia versus femur. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 113:104122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Rodriguez-Florez N, Oyen ML, Shefelbine SJ (2014) Age-related changes in mouse bone permeability. J Biomech 47:1110–1116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Rodriguez-Florez N, Oyen ML, Shefelbine SJ (2013) Multi-scale permeability of murine bone measured by nanoindentation. In: Poromechanics V: proceedings of the fifth biot conference on poromechanics, pp 1145–1151

    Google Scholar 

  23. Casanova M, Balmelli A, Carnelli D, Courty D, Schneider P, Müller R (2017) Nanoindentation analysis of the micromechanical anisotropy in mouse cortical bone. R Soc Open Sci 4:160971

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Pathak S, Swadener JG, Kalidindi SR, Courtland H-W, Jepsen KJ, Goldman HM (2011) Measuring the dynamic mechanical response of hydrated mouse bone by nanoindentation. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 4:34–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Oyen ML (2008) Poroelastic nanoindentation responses of hydrated bone. J Mater Res 23:1307–1314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Galli M, Oyen M (2009) Fast identification of poroelastic parameters from indentation tests. Cmes-Comput Model Eng Sci 48:241–269

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. Gatti V, Azoulay EM, Fritton SP (2018) Microstructural changes associated with osteoporosis negatively affect loading-induced fluid flow around osteocytes in cortical bone. J Biomech 66:127–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. van Tol AF, Roschger A, Repp F, Chen J, Roschger P, Berzlanovich A, Gruber G, Fratzl P, Weinkamer R (2019) Network architecture strongly influences the fluid flow pattern through the lacunocanalicular network in human osteons. Biomech Model Mechanobiol 1–18

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abhishek Kumar Tiwari .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Ethics declarations

Compliance with Ethical Standards: All procedures performed in this study were in accord-ance with the prescribed Institutional Ethics Committee of G. B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, India.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Tiwari, S. et al. (2023). Estimation of Lacunar Permeability in Anatomical Regions of Femoral Cortex: Endocortical Versus Periosteal. In: Sharma, R., Kannojiya, R., Garg, N., Gautam, S.S. (eds) Advances in Engineering Design. FLAME 2022. Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-3033-3_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-3033-3_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-99-3032-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-99-3033-3

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Navigation