Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
distraction rates [97, 112], nonunion at high distraction rates [112], and successful
union at moderate rates [97, 112]. The latency period has also been studied in these
types of models [116].
4.9
Concluding Remarks
The intrinsic complexity of the events involved in bone tissue after implantation
has motivated the development of numerical models with a predictive purpose.
Most of this work has focused on the performance of phenomenological models
that are capable of estimating the long-term bone behavior and performing com-
parative analysis to determine the influence of different conditions. However, these
models have to be improved in order to better understand the mechanobiological
mechanisms that regulate bone adaptation and healing. Nowadays, the power of
computational methods is sufficient to check fundamental hypotheses, to under-
stand the implications of biophysical assumptions, and to explore new assumptions
that may be later used to design new experiments. In this sense, the development
of novel mechanistic models to simulate bone remodeling and healing processes
opens a new perspective in research and innovation in the design of implants.
This kind of models allows not only performing of comparative analyses, as phe-
nomenological ones, but also better understanding the complex interaction among
tissues, cells, and molecular substances through different biophysical events. This
modeling requires the use of complex and new numerical methodologies, such as,
multiscale, multiphysic, parametric, and stochastic analyses that are in continuous
development.
References
1.
Rho, J., Kuhn-Spearing, L., and
Zioupos, P. (1998)
Med. Eng. Phys.
,
20
Everts, V., Klein-Nulend, J., Tan, S.D.,
and Kuijpers-Jagtman, A.M. (2006)
J. Dent. Res.
,
(2), 92- 102.
85
, 905- 909.
Carter, D.R. and Beaupre, G.S. (2001)
Skeletal Function and Form: Mechanobi-
ology of Skeletal Development, Aging and
Regeneration
, Cambridge University
Press.
2.
8.
Vezeridis, P.S., Semeins, C.M.,
Chen, Q., and Klein-Nulend, J. (2006)
Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun.
,
348
,
1082- 1088.
9.
Chen, A.A., Curtiss, S.B., Martin, R.B.,
Hazelwood, S.J., Hedgecock, N.L., and
Hadi, T. (2007)
Bone
,
Miller, S.C. and Jee, W.S.S. (1992)
Bone
, vol. 4, pp. 1-19. CRC Press, Boca
Raton.
3.
40
, 627- 637.
10.
Frost, H.M. (1963)
Bone Remodel-
ing Dynamics
, Charles C. Thomas,
Springfield.
4.
Weinbaum, S., Cowin, S.C., and Zeng,
Y. (1994)
J. Biomech.
,
27
, 339- 360.
5.
Rubin, J., Rubin, C., and Jacobs, C.R.
(2006)
Gene
,
367
, 1-16.
11.
Harada, S. and Rodan, G.A. (2003)
Nature
,
423
, 349- 355.
6.
Orr, A.W., Helmke, B.P., Blackman,
B.R., and Schwartz, M.A. (2006)
Dev.
Cell
,
10
, 11- 20.
Vico, L., Moro, L., Hartmann, D.,
Roth,M.,Alexandre,C.,Collet,P.,
and Uebelhart, D. (1997)
Bone
,
12.
20
,
7.
Semeins, C.M., Bronckers, A.L.J.J.,
Maltha, J.C., Von Den Hoff, J.W.,
547- 551.
