Hernandez Christopher J, van der Meulen Marjolein Ch
Sibley School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA.
Meinig School of Biomedical Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca NY, USA.
J Bone Miner Res. 2017 Jun;32(6):1157-1162. doi: 10.1002/jbmr.3078. Epub 2017 Feb 7.
Increases in fracture risk beyond what are expected from bone mineral density (BMD) are often attributed to poor "bone quality," such as impaired bone tissue strength. Recent studies, however, have highlighted the importance of tissue material properties other than strength, such as fracture toughness. Here we review the concepts behind failure properties other than strength and the physical mechanisms through which they cause mechanical failure: strength describes failure from a single overload; fracture toughness describes failure from a modest load combined with a preexisting flaw or damage; and fatigue strength describes failure from thousands to millions of cycles of small loads. In bone, these distinct failure mechanisms appear to be more common in some clinical fractures than others. For example, wrist fractures are usually the result of a single overload, the failure mechanism dominated by bone strength, whereas spinal fractures are rarely the result of a single overload, implicating multiple loading cycles and increased importance of fatigue strength. The combination of tissue material properties and failure mechanisms that lead to fracture represent distinct mechanistic pathways, analogous to molecular pathways used to describe cell signaling. Understanding these distinct mechanistic pathways is necessary because some characteristics of bone tissue can increase fracture risk by impairing fracture toughness or fatigue strength without impairing bone tissue strength. Additionally, mechanistic pathways to failure associated with fracture toughness and fatigue involve multiple loading events over time, raising the possibility that a developing fracture could be detected and interrupted before overt failure of a bone. Over the past two decades there have been substantial advancements in fracture prevention by understanding bone strength and fractures caused by a single load, but if we are to improve fracture risk prevention beyond what is possible now, we must consider material properties other than strength. © 2017 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.
骨折风险的增加超过了骨密度(BMD)预期的范围,这通常归因于“骨质量”不佳,比如骨组织强度受损。然而,最近的研究强调了除强度之外的组织材料特性的重要性,比如断裂韧性。在此,我们回顾除强度之外的失效特性背后的概念以及它们导致机械失效的物理机制:强度描述的是单次过载导致的失效;断裂韧性描述的是适度载荷与预先存在的裂纹或损伤相结合导致的失效;疲劳强度描述的是数千至数百万次小载荷循环导致的失效。在骨骼中,这些不同的失效机制在某些临床骨折中似乎比在其他骨折中更为常见。例如,腕部骨折通常是单次过载的结果,其失效机制以骨强度为主导,而脊柱骨折很少是单次过载的结果,这意味着存在多次加载循环且疲劳强度的重要性增加。导致骨折的组织材料特性和失效机制的组合代表了不同的机制途径,类似于用于描述细胞信号传导的分子途径。理解这些不同的机制途径是必要的,因为骨组织的某些特性可通过损害断裂韧性或疲劳强度而增加骨折风险,而不损害骨组织强度。此外,与断裂韧性和疲劳相关的失效机制途径涉及随着时间的多次加载事件,这增加了在骨骼明显失效之前检测并阻止骨折发展的可能性。在过去二十年中,通过了解骨强度和单次载荷导致的骨折,在骨折预防方面取得了重大进展,但如果我们要进一步提高骨折风险预防水平,就必须考虑除强度之外的材料特性。© 2017美国骨与矿物质研究学会