Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Table 3
Summary of studies that examined the influence of age on bone responses to extrinsic cyclic loading
Study
Animal sex,
species (Strain)
Age
Protocol
Significant observations regarding
the influence of loading
Conclusion
Rubin et al.
[ 37 ]
Male, Turkey
12 months—young
36 months—old
Ulna isolation, axial loading, 8 weeks,
300 cycles/day, 3000 le,2Hz
Cortical area: Y :
Mineral apposition rate: Y :
Age effect;
old not
responsive
Turner et al.
[ 44 , 45 ]
Female, rat
(Sprague-
Dawley)
9 months—mature
19 months—old
Tibial 4-point bending, 2 weeks, 36
cycles/day, 2 Hz
Mature: 27-64 N (1400-3000 le)
Old: 30-64 N (1600-3100 le)
Periosteal woven bone formation
load [40 N: M: (100%),
O: (60%)
Endocortical lamellar bone
formation
load 40 N: M:; load 64 N: M::,
O:
Age effect;
old less
responsive
4 months—young a
21 months—old
Srinivasan
et al.
[ 53 ]
Female, mice
(C57Bl/6)
Tibial cantilever bending, 2 weeks,
50-250 cycles/day, 1200-2400 le,
1 s load±10 s rest
Bone formation rate: Y::,O:
(O is 2.5-fold less than Y)
O: rest insertion increases bone
formation similar to doubling of
strain
Age effect;
old less
responsive
Kesavan
et al.
[ 46 ]
Female, mice
(C57Bl/6,
C3H/He)
2 months, 4
months—young
8 months—
mature
Tibial 4-point bending, 2 weeks,
36 cycles/day, 9 N (*3800 le), 2 Hz
Cross sectional area: Y:,M:
BMC: Y:,M:
No age effect
Silva and
Brodt
[ 51 ]
Male, mice
(SAM)
4 months
SAMP6 (senescent)
SAMR1 (control)
Tibial 3-point bending, 2 weeks,
60 cycles/day, 1000-2000 le
endocortical,
0.5 s load ? 10 s rest
Endocortical bone formation:
SAMR1:, SAMP6:
No effect of
''senescence''
(continued)
Search WWH ::




Custom Search