Download PDF
Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2002; 15(04): 200-204
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1632739
Original Research
Schattauer GmbH

Validation of canine cancellous and cortical polyurethane foam bone models

J. T. Silbernagel
1   Small Animal Surgery, Department of Veterinary Clinical Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, USA
,
S. C. Kennedy
1   Small Animal Surgery, Department of Veterinary Clinical Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, USA
,
A. L. Johnson
1   Small Animal Surgery, Department of Veterinary Clinical Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, USA
,
G. J. Pijanowski
2   Department of Veterinary Biosciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, USA
,
N. Ehrhart
1   Small Animal Surgery, Department of Veterinary Clinical Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, USA
,
D. Schaeffer
2   Department of Veterinary Biosciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, USA
› Author AffiliationsThis study was funded by a grant from the A-0 Vet Centre, Switzerland, and implants were provided by Synthes, USA.
Further Information

Publication History

Received 10 April 2002

Accepted 31 May 2002

Publication Date:
08 February 2018 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Summary

The purpose of this study was to develop standard canine cortical and cancellous polyurethane foam (PUF) bone models. Canine cancellous and cortical bone mineral densities were determined with dual-energy-x-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Polyurethane foam was cast in two densities, corresponding to the predetermined canine cancellous and cortical bone mineral densities for use as synthetic bone models. Cancellous bone screws (4.0 mm and 6.5 mm) were extracted from both canine cancellous bone segments and blocks of cancellous density PUF. Cortex bone screws (3.5 mm and 4.5 mm) were extracted from both canine cortical bone segments and blocks of cortical density PUF. There was not any difference in the cancellous screw pull-out forces between cancellous density PUF and canine cancellous bone. Cortex screw pull-out forces were significantly less for cortical density PUF than for canine cortical bone. Cancellous density PUF makes an excellent cancellous bone model for use in implant testing.

Keywords

Polyurethane foam - bone models - bone mineral density
 

  • References

  • 1 Boutros CP, Trout DR, Kasra M. The Effect of Repeated Freeze-Thaw Cycles on the Biomechanical Properties of Canine Cortical Bone. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2000; 13 (01) 59-64.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Brinker WO, Olmstead ML, Sumner-Smith G, Prieur WD. Manual of Internal Fixation in Small Animals. 2nd ed.. Berlin: Springer; 1998
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Chapman JR, Harrington RM, Lee KM, Anderson PA, Tencer AF, Kowalski D. Factors Affecting the Pull-out Strength of Cancellous Bone Screws. J Biomech Eng 1996; 118 (03) 391-8.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 DeCoster TA, Heetderks DB, Downey DJ, Ferries JS, Jones W. Optimizing Bone Screw Pull-out Force. J Orthop Trauma 1990; 04 (02) 169-74.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Finlay JB, Harada I, Bourne RB, Rorabeck CH, Hardie R, Scott MA. Analysis of the Pull-out Strength of Screws and Pegs Used to Secure Tibial Components Following Total Knee Arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 1989; 247 (10) 220-31.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Fitch RB, Kerwin SC, Sedrish SA. et al. Holding Power of 3.5 Mm Versus 4.0 Mm Screw Applications Placed in Stripped 2.7 Mm Screw Sites. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1998; 11 (03) 146-51.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Personal communication with Graves L. General Plastics Manufacturing Co; Tacoma, WA: March 2002
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Grier SJ, Turner AS, Alvis MR. The Use of Dual-Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry in Animals. Invest Radiol 1996; 31 (01) 50-62.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Haapasalo H, Kannus P, Sievanen H, Pasanen M, Uusi-Rasi K, Heinonen A, Oja P, Vuori I. Development of Mass, Density, and Estimated Mechanical Characteristics of Bones in Caucasian Females. J Bone Miner Res 1996; 11 (11) 1751-60.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Hayes WC. Biomechanics of Cortical and Trabecular Bone: Implications for Assessment of Fracture Risk. Mow VC, Hayes WC. Basic rthopaedic Biomechanics. New York: Raven Press, Ltd; 1991: 93-142.
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Hearn TC, Schatzker J, Wolfson N. Extraction Strength of Cannulated Cancellous Bone Screws. J Orthop Trauma 1993; 07 (02) 138-41.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Hearn TC, Surowiak JF, Schatzker J. Effects of Tapping on the Holding Strength of Cancellous Bone Screws. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1992; 05 (01) 10-2.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Hein TJ, Hotchkiss R, Perissinotto A, Chao EY. Analysis of Bone Model Material for External Fracture Fixation Experiments. Biomed Sci Instrum 1987; 23: 43-8.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Hughes AN, Jordan BA. The Mechanical Properties of Surgical Bone Screws and Some Aspects of Insertion Practice. Injury 1972; 04 (01) 25-38.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Sarin VK, Loboa EGPolefka, Beaupre GS, Kiratli BJ, Carter DR, van der Meulen MC. DXA-Derived Section Modulus and Bone Mineral Content Predict Long-Bone Torsional Strength. Acta Orthop Scand 1999; 70 (01) 71-6.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Schatzker J, Sanderson R, Murnaghan JP. The Holding Power of Orthopedic Screws in Vivo. Clin Orthop 1975; 108 (05) 115-26.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Tornkvist H, Hearn TC, Schatzker J. The Strength of Plate Fixation in Relation to the Number and Spacing of Bone Screws. J Orthop.Trauma 1996; 10 (03) 204-8.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Trader JE, Johnson RP, Kalbfleisch JH. Bone- Mineral Content, Surface Hardness, and Mechanical Fixation in the Human Radius. A Correlative Study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1979; 61 (08) 1217-20.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar