Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 551

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Improved Bone Structure and Strength After Long-Term Mechanical Loading Is Greatest if Loading Is Separated Into Short Bouts

Robling, Alexander G., Hinant, Felicia M., Burr, David B., Turner, Charles H.·2002·Journal of Bone and Mineral Research

Abstract

Mechanical loading presents a potent osteogenic stimulus to bone cells, but bone cells desensitize rapidly to mechanical stimulation. Resensitization must occur before the cells can transduce future mechanical signals effectively. Previous experiments show that mechanical loading protocols are more osteogenic if the load cycles are divided into several discrete bouts, separated by several hours, than if the cycles are applied in a single uninterrupted bout. We investigated the effect of discrete mechanical loading bouts on structure and biomechanical properties of the rat ulna after 16 weeks of loading. The right ulnas of 26 adult female rats were subjected to 360 load cycles/day, delivered in a haversine waveform at 17 N peak force, 3 days/week for 16 weeks. One-half of the animals (n = 13) were administered all 360 daily cycles in a single uninterrupted bout (360 × 1); the other half were administered 90 cycles four times per day (90 × 4), with 3 h between bouts. A nonloaded baseline control (BLC) group and an age-matched control (AMC) group (n = 9/group) were included in the experiment. The following measurements were collected after death: in situ mechanical strain at the ulna midshaft; ulnar length; maximum and minimum second moments of area (IMAX and IMIN) along the entire length of the ulnas (1-mm increments); and ultimate force, energy to failure, and stiffness of whole ulnas. Qualitative observations of bone morphology were made from whole bone images reconstructed from microcomputed tomography (μCT) slices. Loading according to the 360 × 1 and 90 × 4 schedules improved ultimate force by 64% and 87%, energy to failure by 94% and 165%, IMAX by 13% and 26% (in the middistal diaphysis), IMIN by 69% and 96% (in the middistal diaphysis), and reduced peak mechanical strain by 40% and 36%, respectively. The large increases in biomechanical properties occurred despite very low 5–12% gains in areal bone mineral density (aBMD) and bone mineral content (BMC). Mechanical loading is more effective in enhancing bone biomechanical and structural properties if the loads are applied in discrete bouts, separated by recovery periods (90 × 4 schedule), than if the loads are applied in a single session (360 × 1). Modest increases in aBMD and BMC can improve biomechanical properties substantially if the new bone formation is localized to the most biomechanically relevant sites, as occurs during load-induced bone formation.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1359/jbmr.2002.17.8.1545

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Robling, A. G., Hinant, F. M., Burr, D. B., & Turner, C. H.
Venue
Journal of Bone and Mineral Research
Published
2002-08-01
Volume
17
Issue
8
Pages
1545-1554
ISSN
  • 0884-0431 (ISSN-L)
  • 1523-4681
OpenAlex
W2043567886
Cited by
551
References
0
FWCI
14.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.