Quick Search: Journal  Author  Title/Abstract  Vol./Year 

Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 50 (2011) 07HF18 (6 pages)  |Previous Article| |Next Article|  |Table of Contents|
|Full Text PDF (1052K)| |Buy This Article|

Three-Dimensional Anisotropy of Ultrasonic Wave Velocity in Bovine Cortical Bone: Effects of Hydroxyapatite Crystallites Orientation and Microstructure

Tomohiro Nakatsuji, Kazufumi Yamamoto1, Daisuke Suga, Takahiko Yanagitani2, Mami Matsukawa, Kaoru Yamazaki3, and Yukihiro Matsuyama1

Laboratory of Ultrasonic Electronics, Doshisha University, Kyotanabe, Kyoto 610-0321, Japan
1Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hamamatsu University School of Medicine, Hamamatsu 431-3192, Japan
2Graduate School of Engineering, Nagoya Institute of Technology, Nagoya 466-8555, Japan
3Iwata City Hospital, Iwata, Shizuoka 438-8550, Japan

(Received December 13, 2010; accepted March 25, 2011; published online July 20, 2011)

The three-dimensional anisotropy of longitudinal wave velocity and the hydroxyapatite (HAp) crystallites orientation in bovine cortical bone were experimentally investigated in detail. Bovine cortical bone has two typical microstructures, plexiform and haversian. Two spherical specimens (diameter: 9 mm) were obtained from the anterior (plexiform) and posterior (haversian) parts of a 30-month-old bovine femur. The three-dimensional anisotropy of longitudinal wave velocity was measured using a conventional ultrasonic pulse system by rotating the spherical specimen in the axial–tangential (A–T), axial–radial (A–R), and radial–tangential (R–T) planes. The velocity clearly changed depending on the propagation direction in all the planes. In the A–T and A–R planes, the direction of the highest velocity was slightly inclined from the bone axis direction. Moreover, the results from the X-ray pole figure analysis indicated that there were small tilts in the HAp crystallites orientation. The tilts were similar to those of the highest velocity direction and there were good correlations between velocity and HAp crystallites orientation. However, a comparatively low correlation was found in the posterior part, which shows the stronger effects of bone microstructure. On the other hand, in the R–T plane, where small HAp crystallites oriented, a weak velocity anisotropy was found owing to the bone microstructure. Ultrasonic wave velocities depended on both HAp crystallites orientation and microstructure. The degrees of contribution of these factors varied owing to the position and propagation direction.

URL: http://jjap.jsap.jp/link?JJAP/50/07HF18/
DOI: 10.1143/JJAP.50.07HF18
PACS: 43.20.Hq, 87.19.rm


|Full Text PDF (1052K)| |Buy This Article| Citation:

References

  1. NIH Consensus Development Panel on Osteoporosis Prevention, Diagnosis, and Therapy: J. Am. Mod. Assoc. 285 (2001) 785.
  2. C. F. Njeh, D. Hans, T. Fuerst, C. C. Glüer, and H. K. Genant: Basic Sciences in Quantitative Ultrasound: Assessment of Osteoporosis and Bone Status (Martin Dunitz, London, 1999).
  3. C. C. Glüer and R. Barkmann: Current Osteoporosis Rep. (2003) p. 98.
  4. M. Z. Mughal, K. Ward, N. Qayyum, and C. M. Langton: Arch. Dis. Child. 76 (1997) 535.
  5. C. M. Langton, S. B. Palmar, and R. W. Porter: Eng. Med. 13 (1984) 89.
  6. F. L. Susan and J. L. Katz: J. Biomech. 17 (1984) 241.
  7. R. B. Martin and D. B. Burr: Skeletal Tissue Mechanics (Springer, New York, 1980).
  8. D. T. Reilly and A. H. Burstein: J. Biomech. 8 (1975) 393.
  9. R. Lakes, H. S. Yoon, and J. L. Katz: J. Biomed. Eng. 8 (1986) 143.
  10. C. H. Tuner: Osteoporosis Int. 17 (2006) 1241.
  11. J. D. Currey: J. Biomech. 21 (1988) 131.
  12. V. Ziv, H. D. Wagner, and S. Weiner: Bone 18 (1996) 417.
  13. P. K. Zysset, X. E. Guo, C. E. Hoffler, K. E. Moore, and S. A. Goldstein: J. Biomech. 32 (1999) 1005.
  14. W. Bonfield and M. D. Grynpas: Nature 270 (1977) 453.
  15. Y. Yamato, M. Matsukawa, T. Otani, K. Yamazaki, and A. Nagano: Ultrasonics 44 (2006) 233.
  16. S. Bensamoun, M. C. Ho Ba Cho, Luu S, J. M. Gherbezza, and de J. F. Belleval: J. Biomech. 37 (2004) 503.
  17. N. Sasaki, N. Matsushima, T. Ikawa, H. Yamamura, and A. Fukuda: J. Biomech. 22 (1989) 157.
  18. J. L. Katz and K. Ukraincik: J. Biomech. 4 (1971) 221.
  19. T. N. Gardner, J. C. Elliott, Z. Sklar, and G. A. D. Briggs: J. Biomech. 25 (1992) 1265.
  20. R. S. Gilmore and J. L. Katz: J. Mater Sci. 17 (1982) 1131[CrossRef].
  21. B. A. Auld: Acoustic Fields and Waves in Solids (Krieger, New York, 1990).
  22. Y. Yamato, H. Kataoka, M. Matsukawa, K. Yamazaki, T. Otani, and A. Nagano: Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 44 (2005) 4622[JSAP].
  23. K. Yamamoto, Y. Yaoi, Y. Yamato, H. Mizukawa, T. Yanagitani, M. Matsukawa, and K. Yamazaki: Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 47 (2008) 4096[JSAP].
  24. Y. Yamato, M. Matsukawa, T. Yanagitani, K. Yamazaki, H. Mizukawa, and A. Nagano: Calcif. Tissue Int. 82 (2008) 162.
  25. T. Nakano, K. Kaibara, Y. Tabata, N. Nagata, S. Enomoto, E. Marukawa, and Y. Umakoshi: Bone 31 (2002) 479.
  26. T. Otani: Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 44 (2005) 4578[JSAP].
  27. M. Greenspan and C. E. Tschiegg: J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 31 (1959) 75[AIP Scitation].
  28. J. L. Katz: Nature 283 (1980) 106.
|TOP|  |Previous Article| |Next Article|  |Table of Contents| |JJAP Home|
Copyright © 2013 The Japan Society of Applied Physics
Contact Information