The Craniomaxillofacial Skeleton: New Approaches in Computational Biomechanics and Fracture Stabilization

The mechanical behaviour of the craniomaxillofacial skeleton (CMFS) under physiological loads is among the least understood in the field of musculoskeletal biomechanics. The highly complex structure of the CMFS defies reduction to analogous or simpler components. Its modelling demands a holistic and inte- grated approach in order to gain insight into its structural function. As such, the biomechanical foundations upon which the practises for open-reduction internal-fixation are developed are controversial. A systematic and quantitative biomechanical framework is needed to guide the treatment of CMFS injuries and pathologies. This research aims to address these issues on two fronts: through characterization of the loading patterns of the CMFS derived from computational modelling, as well as the development of an innovative internal stabilization device for the CMFS. This thesis first addresses the challenges through a practical and novel approach whereby a deblurring algorithm is applied to clinical CT images which restores the geometry and intensity of the thin cortical bone structures. Using these restored images a biomechanical framework was further developed to produce high fidelity subject-specific finite element models of the CMFS. Validation of this approach was demonstrated through strong correlation with multi-subject in vitro experiments (r = 0.93, regression slope of unity). These models elucidated the patterns of stress and strain on the CMFS subject to a simulated physiological masticatory bite load. The observed patterns invite a critical re-analysis of the classic CMFS buttress hypothesis. Finally, a pilot experimental investigation into the mechanical efficiency of“Bone Tape”, a bioresorbable polymer- ceramic composite device for internal fixation of CMFS fractures, was conducted. In vitro experiments demonstrated an initial flexibility which conferred an ability to conform to complex 3-D bone topologies and a potential to equate the strength of commercially available bioresorbable systems. A prototype concept for its use was deployed in an in vivo rabbit model. The structural biomechanics knowledge gained based on the validated computational biomechanical framework will ultimately provide a robust platform which will enable the rational design and optimization of new treatment hardware and practises, such as Bone Tape, toward improved outcomes in reconstruction of the CMFS.

Year	Entry
2007	Anderson AE, Ellis BJ, Weiss JA. Verification, validation and sensitivity studies in computational biomechanics. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng. June 2007;10(3):171-184.
2006	Taddei F, Cristofolini L, Martelli S, Gill HS, Viceconti M. Subject-specific finite element models of long bones: an in vitro evaluation of the overall accuracy. J Biomech. 2006;39(13):2457-2467.
2005	Anderson AE, Peters CL, Tuttle BD, Weiss JA. Subject-specific finite element model of the pelvis: development, validation and sensitivity studies. J Biomech Eng. June 2005;127(3):365-373.
1994	Silva MJ, Wang C, Keaveny TM, Hayes WC. Direct and computed tomography thickness measurements of the human, lumbar vertebral shell and endplate. Bone. July 8, 1994;15(4):409-414.
1993	Dalstra M, Huiskes R, Odgaard A, van Erning L. Mechanical and textural properties of pelvic trabecular bone. J Biomech. April–May 1993;26(4-5):523-535.
2012	Schneider CA, Rasband WS, Eliceiri KW. NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis. Nat Methods. July 2012;9(7):671-675.
2002	Lacroix D, Prendergast PJ. A mechano-regulation model for tissue differentiation during fracture healing: analysis of gap size and loading. J Biomech. September 2002;35(9):1163-1171.
1998	Claes LE, Heigele CA, Neidlinger-Wilke C, Kaspar D, Seidl W, Margevicius KJ, Augat P. Effects of mechanical factors on the fracture healing process. Clin Orthop Relat Res. October 1998;355(suppl):S132-S147.
1999	Claes LE, Heigele CA. Magnitudes of local stress and strain along bony surfaces predict the course and type of fracture healing. J Biomech. March 1999;32(3):255-266.
2010	Treece GM, Gee AH, Mayhew PM, Poole KES. High resolution cortical bone thickness measurement from clinical CT data. Med Image Anal. June 2010;14(3):276-290.
2011	Varghese B, Short D, Penmetsa R, Goswami T, Hangartner T. Computed-tomography-based finite-element models of long bones can accurately capture strain response to bending and torsion. J Biomech. April 29, 2011;(7):1374-1379.
1998	Carter DR, Beaupré GS, Giori NJ, Helms JA. Mechanobiology of skeletal regeneration. Clin Orthop Relat Res. October 1998;355(suppl):S41-S55.
1997	Claes L, Augat P, Suger G, Wilke H-J. Influence of size and stability of the osteotomy gap on the success of fracture healing. J Orthop Res. July 1997;15(4):577-584.
1977	Carter DR, Hayes WC. The compressive behavior of bone as a two-phase porous structure. J Bone Joint Surg. 1977;59A(7):954-962.
1994	Keller TS. Predicting the compressive mechanical behavior of bone. J Biomech. September 1994;27(9):1159-1168.
2011	Maloul A, Fialkov J, Whyne C. The impact of voxel size-based inaccuracies on the mechanical behavior of thin bone structures. Ann Biomed Eng. March 2011;39(3):1092-1100.
2007	Skedros JG, Baucomb SL. Mathematical analysis of trabecular “trajectories” in apparent trajectorial structures: the unfortunate historical emphasis on the human proximal femur. J Theo Biol. January 7, 2007;244(1):15-45.
1998	Zannoni C, Mantovani R, Viceconti M. Material properties assignment to finite element models of bone structures: a new method. Med Eng Phys. December 1998;20(10):735-740.
1991	Cheal EJ, Mansmann KA, Digioia AM III, Hayes WC, Perren SM. Role of interfragmentary strain in fracture healing: ovine model of a healing osteotomy. J Orthop Res. January 1991;9(1):131-142.
2000	Huiskes R. If bone is the answer, then what is the question? J Anat. August 2000;197(2):145-156.
2007	Schileo E, Taddei F, Malandrino A, Cristofolini L, Viceconti M. Subject-specific finite element models can accurately predict strain levels in long bones. J Biomech. 2007;40(13):2982-2989.
1996	Hangartner TN, Gilsanz V. Evaluation of cortical bone by computed tomography. J Bone Miner Res. October 1996;11(10):1518-1525.
2009	Motherway JA, Verschueren P, Van der Perre G, Vander Sloten J, Gilchrist MD. The mechanical properties of cranial bone: the effect of loading rate and cranial sampling position. J Biomech. September 18, 2009;42(13):2129-2135.
2012	Maloul A. Biomechanical Characterization of Complex Thin Bone Structures in the Human Craniofacial Skeleton [PhD thesis]. University of Toronto; 2012.
1999	Prevrhal S, Engelke K, Kalender WA. Accuracy limits for the determination of cortical width and density: the influence of object size and CT imaging parameters. Phys Med Biol. March 1999;44(3):751-764.
2013	Burkhart TA, Andrews DM, Dunning CE. Finite element modeling mesh quality, energy balance and validation methods: a review with recommendations associated with the modeling of bone tissue. J Biomech. May 31, 2013;46(9):1477-1488.
1986	Wolff J. The Law of Bone Remodelling. Maquet P, Furlong R, trans. New York, NY: Springer; 1986.
2010	Chen G, Schmutz B, Epari D, Rathnayaka K, Ibrahim S, Schuetz MA, Pearcy MJ. A new approach for assigning bone material properties from CT images into finite element models. J Biomech. 2010;43(5):1011-1015.
2008	Zioupos P, Cook RB, Hutchinson JR. Some basic relationships between density values in cancellous and cortical bone. J Biomech. 2008;41(9):1961-1968.
2004	Viceconti M, Davinelli M, Taddei F, Cappello A. Automatic generation of accurate subject-specific bone finite element models to be used in clinical studies. J Biomech. 2004;37(10):1597-1605.
2008	Helgason B, Taddei F, Pálsson H, Schileo E, Cristofolini L, Viceconti M, Brynjolfsson S. A modified method for assigning material properties to FE models of bones. Med Eng Phys. May 2008;30(4):444-453.
2008	Helgason B, Perilli E, Schileo E, Taddei F, Brynjólfsson S, Viceconti M. Mathematical relationships between bone density and mechanical properties: a literature review. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2008;23(2):135-146.
2004	Gupta S, van der Helm FCT, Sterk JC, van Keulen F, Kaptein BL. Development and experimental validation of a three-dimensional finite element model of the human scapula. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part H-J Eng Med. March 2004;218(3):127-142.
2008	Austman RL, Milner JS, Holdsworth DW, Dunning CE. The effect of the density–modulus relationship selected to apply material properties in a finite element model of long bone. J Biomech. November 14, 2008;41(15):3171-3176.
2003	Morgan EF, Bayraktar HH, Keaveny TM. Trabecular bone modulus–density relationships depend on anatomic site. J Biomech. July 2003;36(7):897-904.
2011	Trabelsi N, Yosibash Z, Wutte C, Augat P, Eberle S. Patient-specific finite element analysis of the human femur: a double-blinded biomechanical validation. J Biomech. June 3, 2011;44(9):1666-1672.
1973	Hounsfield GN. Computerized transverse axial scanning (tomography), I: description of system. Br J Radiol. 1973;46:1016-1022.
2001	Cowin SC, ed. Bone Mechanics Handbook. 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2001.

Year

Entry

2007

Anderson AE, Ellis BJ, Weiss JA. Verification, validation and sensitivity studies in computational biomechanics. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng. June 2007;10(3):171-184.

2006

Taddei F, Cristofolini L, Martelli S, Gill HS, Viceconti M. Subject-specific finite element models of long bones: an in vitro evaluation of the overall accuracy. J Biomech. 2006;39(13):2457-2467.

2005

Anderson AE, Peters CL, Tuttle BD, Weiss JA. Subject-specific finite element model of the pelvis: development, validation and sensitivity studies. J Biomech Eng. June 2005;127(3):365-373.

1994

Silva MJ, Wang C, Keaveny TM, Hayes WC. Direct and computed tomography thickness measurements of the human, lumbar vertebral shell and endplate. Bone. July 8, 1994;15(4):409-414.

1993

Dalstra M, Huiskes R, Odgaard A, van Erning L. Mechanical and textural properties of pelvic trabecular bone. J Biomech. April–May 1993;26(4-5):523-535.