Cited by 102Bone health and osteoporosis researchBone fractures and treatmentsFatigue and fracture mechanics

Influence of microdamage on fracture toughness of the human femur and tibia

Norman, T.L., Yeni, Y.N., Brown, C.U., Wang, Z.·1998·Bone

Abstract

The relationship between microdamage accumulation and bone fragility is not well understood. Previous work has demonstrated a positive relationship between microdamage and age in human cortical bone. Prior investigations have also demonstrated that fracture toughness decreases with age in the same bone. Based on these findings, the objective of this study was to test the hypothesis that a decrease in fracture toughness can be attributed to an increase in microdamage density. Microdamage parameters (density, surface density, and average crack length) were measured from bone taken from the shaft of the human femur and tibia and correlated with results from fracture toughness tests of the same bone. Results indicated that there was a weak but significant inverse relationship between fracture toughness and microdamage parameters for tension loading of the femur. These findings suggest that in vivo microdamage observable at the transmitted light level (100x) plays a secondary role to other contributory factors to decreased fracture toughness with age. Results also indicate that this relationship depends on bone ductility that apparently differs between the femur and the tibia. This study, in addition to prior investigations, suggests that crack size (microscopic vs. submicroscopic) and crack origin or type (in vivo vs. stress induced de novo) may influence the relationship between microdamage and bone toughness.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s8756-3282(98)00103-3

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A weak inverse relationship between fracture toughness and microdamage density has been reported.

    “and a weak inverse relationship between fracture toughness and microdamage density has been reported (11).”

    From Bone Mechanical Properties in Healthy and Diseased States (2018) · cites this paper as [11]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Norman, T. L., Yeni, Y. N., Brown, C. U., & Wang, Z.
Affiliations
West Virginia University (US)
Corresponding author
Norman, T.L.
Venue
Bone
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1998-09
Volume
23
Issue
3
Pages
303-306
ISSN
  • 1873-2763 (ISSN-L)
  • 8756-3282
OpenAlex
W1986753671
Cited by
102
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 4
FWCI
2.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Bone (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DigitalCommons-Cedarville (Cedarville University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Bone health and osteoporosis research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Bone fractures and treatments
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanics of Materials › Fatigue and fracture mechanics
Keywords
microdamage, fracture toughness, cortical bone, femur, tibia, bone fragility, aging, crack density, crack length, tensile loading, human bone
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Aging, Female, Femoral Fractures, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Tibial Fractures, Bone Density

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review