Density and mechanical properties of vertebral trabecular bone—A review

• Published in: JOR-spine 2021-12, Vol.4 (4), p.e1176-n/a
• Main Authors: Öhman‐Mägi, Caroline, Holub, Ondrej, Wu, Dan, Hall, Richard M., Persson, Cecilia
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Biomedical materials; Bone density; Bones; Disease; Fractures; Mechanical properties; Metastasis; Multiple myeloma; Osteoporosis; Patients; Review; Reviews; Tomography; trabecular bone; Vertebrae
• ISSN: 2572-1143; 2572-1143
• DOI: 10.1002/jsp2.1176

Being able to predict the mechanical properties of vertebrae in patients with osteoporosis and other relevant pathologies is essential to prevent fractures and to develop the most favorable fracture treatments. Furthermore, a reliable prediction is important for developing more patient‐ and pathology‐specific biomaterials. A plethora of studies correlating bone density to mechanical properties has been reported; however, the results are variable, due to a variety of factors, including anatomical site and methodological differences. The aim of this study was to provide a comprehensive literature review on density and mechanical properties of human vertebral trabecular bone as well as relationships found between these properties. A literature search was performed to include studies, which investigated mechanical properties and bone density of trabecular bone. Only studies on vertebral trabecular bone tissue, reporting bone density or mechanical properties, were kept. A large variation in reported vertebral trabecular bone densities, mechanical properties, and relationships between the two was found, as exemplified by values varying between 0.09 and 0.35 g/cm3 for the wet apparent density and from 0.1 to 976 MPa for the elastic modulus. The differences were found to reflect variations in experimental and analytical processes that had been used, including testing protocol and specimen geometry. The variability in the data decreased in studies where bone tissue testing occurred in a standardized manner (eg, the reported differences in average elastic modulus decreased from 400% to 10%). It is important to take this variability into account when analyzing the predictions found in the literature, for example, to calculate fracture risk, and it is recommended to use the models suggested in the present review to reduce data variability.