This Article Abstract Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by van Eijden, T.M.G.J. Articles by Mulder, L. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by van Eijden, T.M.G.J. Articles by Mulder, L. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Structural and Mechanical Properties of Mandibular Condylar Bone

Department of Functional Anatomy, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), Universiteit van Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit, Meibergdreef 15, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands

View larger version (89K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 1. A schematic overview of the different steps in the analysis. A condyle is separated from a human mandible. The condyle was scanned in a micro-CT system, after which 4 volumes of interest were selected and used for the construction of finite element models.

View larger version (28K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 2. Anterior (upper panels) and lateral (lower panels) views of plots of ellipsoids of mean intercept lengths and Young’s moduli. The axes of the ellipsoids correspond to 3 principal directions. The distance from the surface to the center of the ellipsoid depicts the magnitude of mean intercept length or Young’s modulus. The three-dimensional orientation of the ellipsoids is emphasized by the meridians. Ellipsoids were constructed with the average H1, H2, and H3, and the average E1, E2, and E3 (n = 11; see Table for means and SD values). Differences in the magnitude of the mechanical ellipsoids are primarily related to differences in bone volume fractions (compare superolateral and inferomedial regions). Differences in the magnitudes of the principal directions are related to the amount of structural and mechanical anisotropy. Since the mechanical anisotropy (E1/E3) is larger than the structural anisotropy (H1/H3), the Young’s moduli ellipsoids are flatter than the mean intercept length ellipsoids.

View larger version (28K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 3. Relationships between density and orientation of the trabecular structure and the magnitudes of the various moduli and their principal mechanical directions. (A) Relation between bone volume fraction (BV/TV) and Young’s (E1,2,3) and shear moduli (G12,23,31) relative to the 3 principal mechanical directions. (B) Relation between principal structural direction (angles MIL and MIL) and principal mechanical direction (angles E and E). For each graph, n = 44.

Journal of Dental Research, Vol. 85, No. 1, 33-37 (2006)
DOI: 10.1177/154405910608500105


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?