Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
MES had little effect on the prediction. The
interaction between E and MES revealed that
for the three middle E values (
results indicated that
may be a reason-
able cutoff strain for MES. From exami-
nation of the interaction between angle and
E, loading angle had a similar performance
for E
1500
µε
GPa),
r
showed an increasing trend in MES. The inter-
action between loading angle and E indicated
that for all angles,
0
.
1
,
0
.
5
,
1
≤
0
.
5
GPa, but these values separated for
0
.
01
,
5
, and
10
GPa had poor
1
through
10
Gpa,
with
0
being the best
r
values. For E values of
GPa, the
r
value varied considerably in accordance with
the loading angle, with
0
.
1
through
1
prediction.
The top-
) for the highest Ia-
Ip correlation and smallest deviation showed
that two criteria,
r
and SSQD, did not agree
entirely, although the same combination (
10
list (Table
8
.
4
0
° being superior to the
other angle.
Similar to the results of the
r
values, the
best (smallest SSQD) loading direction on
average was
0
-
0
) yielded the best agreement
between experiment and theory according to
both criteria. However, some combinations
with high
r
had poor SSQD (such as number
.
5
GPa-
3000
µε
; the best E and MES values were
the high ones. When the interaction between
E and MES was examined, the prediction
improved for all E as MES increased. However,
for the four highest E values (
0
2
on the
r
list) and were ruled out of consider-
ation as strain-mediated ingrowth parameters.
In these cases, the data fell close to a straight
line, but not the line Ia
0
.
5
,
1
,
5
, and
10
GPa), the prediction increased substantially
as MES increased from
, but
modestly or not all for larger MES values. The
500
to
1500
µε
Ip. Therefore, the
results indicate that, by using a range of MES
=
Table 8.4. Top-10 list ranked by
r
and SSQD
Ranked by
r
Loading angle
E (GPa)
MES (
me
)
SSQD
r
A
B
1
0°
0.5
3000
6062
0.83
−
4.94
1.33
2
0°
0.1
1500
122234
0.82
93.57
0.10
3
0°
0.5
2500
13576
0.82
6.71
1.36
4
0°
0.1
3000
82441
0.82
71.69
0.46
5
0°
0.1
2000
109480
0.80
87.39
0.19
6
0°
0.1
2500
95493
0.80
79.47
0.33
7
0°
1
1500
9834
0.79
1.05
1.31
8
0°
0.5
2000
29026
0.75
20.53
1.29
9
0°
0.1
1000
132710
0.74
98.19
0.03
10
0°
1
1000
37858
0.72
26.33
1.26
Ranked by SSQD
Loading angle
E (GPa)
MES (
me
)
SSQD
r
A
B
1
0°
0.5
3000
6062
0.83
−
4.94
1.33
2
0°
1
2000
7759
0.71
93.57
0.10
3
0°
1
1500
9834
0.79
6.71
1.36
4
0°
5
500
10073
0.49
71.69
0.46
5
0°
1
2500
11505
0.68
87.39
0.19
6
0°
0.5
2500
13576
0.82
79.47
0.33
7
0°
1
3000
16047
0.66
1.05
1.31
8
0°
10
500
21387
−
0.36
20.53
1.29
9
30°
1
3000
22374
0.42
98.19
0.03
10
0°
5
1000
22507
0.14
26.33
1.26
A and B are the coefficients in the regression equation of Ia
=
A
+
B * Ip. The three-factor combined effects indicate that 0°-0.5 Gpa-
3000
µε
and 0°-1 Gpa-1500
µε
were the best combinations matching both criteria to establish strain-ingrowth relationships. The cases
with 0.1 GPa were ruled out by two-factor interaction analyses. Abbreviations: E, elastic modulus; MES, minimum effective strain; Ia,
amount of bone ingrowth measured by histological section; Ip, amount of bone ingrowth predicted by computer modeling.
