This study investigates the relationship between the thickness of articular cartilage, subchondral, and cancellous bone with the biomechanical behaviour of the osteochondral unit, aiming to identify the dominant roles of these structures. The findings could assist in designing structures with compatible morphology, materials, and cartilage repair procedures for surgeons. Using bovine hindlegs, measurements of articular cartilage thickness were taken, and indentation and three-point bending tests were performed. The study found that the cartilage thickness was greater in the medial tibial plateau, particularly in the middle region, while the lateral plateau exhibited lower thickness but higher instantaneous modulus and stiffness, especially in the anterior region. Strong correlations were observed between osteochondral bone properties and the thickness of subchondral and cancellous bone in the medial tibial plateau. The biomechanical behaviour of the osteochondral unit showed regional variation, with bone thickness influencing the medial plateau cartilage thickness impacting the lateral plateau. This study provides a possible reference for surgeons to design effective strategies for treating cartilage damage.
DingMOdgaardAHvidI. Changes in the three-dimensional microstructure of human tibial cancellous bone in early osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Br2003; 85: 906–912. [Online]. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12931817.
2.
LiG, Yin J, Gao J, et al.Subchondral bone in osteoarthritis: insight into risk factors and microstructural changes. Arthritis Res Ther2013; 15: 223.
3.
MansellJPCollinsCBaileyAJ. Bone, not cartilage, should be the major focus in osteoarthritis. Nat Clin Pract Rheumatology, Review2007; 3: 306–307.
4.
KurokiKCookCRCookJL. Subchondral bone changes in three different canine models of osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage2011; 19: 1142–1149.
5.
FelsonDT. Osteoarthritis as a disease of mechanics. (in English), Osteoarthr Cartilage2013; 21: 10–15.
6.
LiuCLiuCSiL, et al.Relationship between subchondral bone microstructure and articular cartilage in the osteoarthritic knee using 3T MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging2018: 1–11. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.25982.
7.
Sophia FoxAJBediARodeoSA. The basic science of articular cartilage: structure, composition, and function. (in eng), Sports Health2009; 1: 461–468.
8.
SilvaMJKeavenyTMHayesWC. Load sharing between the shell and centrum in the lumbar vertebral body. Spine1997; 22: 140–150.
9.
LiuXSBevillGKeavenyTM, et al.Micromechanical analyses of vertebral trabecular bone based on individual trabeculae segmentation of plates and rods. J Biomech2009; 42: 249–256.
10.
YokotaHLeongDJSunHB. Mechanical loading: bone remodeling and cartilage maintenance. Curr Osteoporos Rep2011; 9: 237–242.
11.
AhoOMFinnilaMThevenotJ, et al.Subchondral bone histology and grading in osteoarthritis. PLoS One2017; 12: e0173726.
12.
LiBMarshallDRoeM, et al.The electron microscope appearance of the subchondral bone plate in the human femoral head in osteoarthritis and osteoporosis. J Anat1999; 195: 101–110.
13.
KohlesSSRobertsJBUptonML, et al.Direct perfusion measurements of cancellous bone anisotropic permeability. J Biomech2001; 34: 1197–1202.
14.
ChenHShoumuraSEmuraS, et al.Regional variations of vertebral trabecular bone microstructure with age and gender. Osteoporos Int2008; 19: 1473–1483.
15.
ShimVPWYangLMLiuJF, et al.Characterisation of the dynamic compressive mechanical properties of cancellous bone from the human cervical spine. Int J Impact Eng2005; 32: 525–540.
16.
BurgersTAMasonJNieburG, et al.Compressive properties of trabecular bone in the distal femur. J Biomech2008; 41: 1077–1085.
17.
RapillardLCharleboisMZyssetPK. Compressive fatigue behavior of human vertebral trabecular bone. J Biomech2006; 39: 2133–2139.
18.
TeoJCMSi-HoeKMKehJEL, et al.Correlation of cancellous bone microarchitectural parameters from microCT to CT number and bone mechanical properties. (in English), Mat Sci Eng C-Bio S2007; 27: 333–339.
19.
van LentheGHStauberMMullerR. Specimen-specific beam models for fast and accurate prediction of human trabecular bone mechanical properties. Bone2006; 39: 1182–1189.
20.
Abd LatifMJJinZWilcoxRK. Biomechanical characterisation of ovine spinal facet joint cartilage. J Biomech2012; 45: 1346–1352.
21.
FermorHL, McLure SWD, Taylor SD, et al.Biological, biochemical and biomechanical characterisation of articular cartilage from the porcine, bovine and ovine hip and knee. Biomed Mater Eng2015; 25: 381–395.
22.
MirahmadiFKoolstraJHLobbezooF, et al.Ex vivo thickness measurement of cartilage covering the temporomandibular joint. J Biomech2017; 52: 165–168.
23.
PfliegerI, Stolberg-Stolberg J, Foehr P, et al.Full biomechanical mapping of the ovine knee joint to determine creep-recovery, stiffness and thickness variation. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)2019; 67: 1–7.
24.
ShepherdDESeedhomBB. Thickness of human articular cartilage in joints of the lower limb. Ann Rheum Dis1999; 58: 27–34.
25.
ThambyahANatherAGohJ. Mechanical properties of articular cartilage covered by the meniscus. Osteoarthritis Cartilage2006; 14: 580–588.
26.
KattaJPawaskarSSJinZM, et al.Effect of load variation on the friction properties of articular cartilage. Inst Mech Eng2007; 221: 175–181.
27.
KivirantaPRieppoJKorhonenRK, et al.Collagen network primarily controls poisson's ratio of bovine articular cartilage in compression. J Orthop Res2006; 24: 690–699.
28.
ZhangMZhengYPMakAF. Estimating the effective young's modulus of soft tissues from indentation tests–nonlinear finite element analysis of effects of friction and large deformation. Med Eng Phys1997; 19: 512–517.
29.
KivirantaPRieppoJKorhonenRK, et al.Collagen network primarily controls poisson’s ratio of bovine articular cartilage in compression. J Orthop Res2006; 24: 690–699.
30.
HayesWCKeerLMHerrmannG, et al.A mathematical analysis for indentation tests of articular cartilage. J Biomech1972; 5: 541–551.
31.
SadeghiHEspinoDMShepherdDE. Fatigue strength of bovine articular cartilage-on-bone under three-point bending: the effect of loading frequency. BMC Musculoskelet Disord2017; 18: 142.
32.
LeppanenOSievanenHJokihaaraJ, et al.Three-point bending of rat femur in the mediolateral direction: introduction and validation of a novel biomechanical testing protocol. J Bone Miner Res2006; 21: 1231–1237.
33.
JamsaTJalovaaraPPengZ, et al.Comparison of three-point bending test and peripheral quantitative computed tomography analysis in the evaluation of the strength of mouse femur and tibia. Bone1998; 23: 155–161.
34.
CristofoliniLVicecontiM. Mechanical validation of whole bone composite tibia models. J Biomech2000; 33: 279–288.
35.
NobakhtiSKatsamenisOLZaarourN, et al.Elastic modulus varies along the bovine femur. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater2017; 71: 279–285.
36.
AnggrainiVAsadiASyamsirA, et al.Three point bending flexural strength of cement treated tropical marine soil reinforced by lime treated natural fiber. Measurement ( Mahwah N J)2017; 111: 158–166.
37.
MalikSHerronTMabroukA, et al.Tibial plateau fractures. In: NaomiR (ed) StatPearls [Internet]. Worcester, United Kingdom: StatPearls Publishing, 2023.
38.
LiuB, Lad NK, Collins AT, et al.In vivo tibial cartilage strains in regions of cartilage-to-cartilage contact and cartilage-to-Meniscus contact in response to walking. Am J Sports Med2017; 45: 2817–2823.
39.
VenäläinenMSS, Mononen ME, Väänänen SP, et al.Effect of bone inhomogeneity on tibiofemoral contact mechanics during physiological loading. J Biomech2016; 49: 1111–1120.
40.
YilmazBDemirYÖzyörükE, et al.The effect of knee joint loading and immobilization on the femoral cartilage thickness in paraplegics. Spinal Cord2016; 54: 283–286.
41.
ArgentieriEC, Sturnick DR, DeSarno MJ, et al.Changes to the articular cartilage thickness profile of the tibia following anterior cruciate ligament injury. Osteoarthritis Cartilage2014; 22: 1453–1460.
42.
AndriacchiTPMündermannASmithRL, et al.A framework for the in vivo pathomechanics of osteoarthritis at the knee. Ann Biomed Eng2004; 32: 447–457.
43.
ChaudhariAMWBriantPLBevillSL, et al.Knee kinematics, cartilage morphology, and osteoarthritis after ACL injury. Med Sci Sports Exercise2008; 40: 215–222.
44.
DenewethJMNewmanKESylviaSM, et al.Heterogeneity of tibial plateau cartilage in response to a physiological compressive strain rate. J Orthop Res2013; 31: 370–375.
45.
LiG, Park SE, DeFrate LE, et al.The cartilage thickness distribution in the tibiofemoral joint and its correlation with cartilage-to-cartilage contact. Clin Biomech2005; 20: 736–744.
46.
ZhengLCareyRThorhauerE, et al.In vivo tibiofemoral skeletal kinematics and cartilage contact arthrokinematics during decline walking after isolated meniscectomy. Med Eng Phys2018; 51: 41–48.
47.
DejourHBonninM. Tibial translation after anterior cruciate ligament rupture. Two radiological tests compared. J Bone Jt Surg1994; 76: 745–749. [Online]. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8083263.
48.
ThambyahABroomND. Further insight into the depth-dependent microstructural response of cartilage to compression using a channel indentation technique. Comput Math Methods Med2013; 2013: 358192.
49.
CullitonKNSpeirsAD. Sliding contact accelerates solute transport into the cartilage surface compared to axial loading. Osteoarthr Cartilage2021. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2021.05.060.
50.
ParanjapeCS, Cutcliffe HC, Grambow SC, et al.A new stress test for knee joint cartilage. Sci Rep-Uk2019; 9: 2283.
51.
MowVCCKueiSCCLaiWMM, et al.Biphasic creep and stress relaxation of articular cartilage in compression: theory and experiments. J Biomech Eng1980; 102: 73.
52.
NewSA, Robins SP, Campbell MK, et al.Dietary influences on bone mass and bone metabolism: further evidence of a positive link between fruit and vegetable consumption and bone health?Am J Clin Nutr2000; 71: 142–151.
53.
RizzoliR. Nutrition: its role in bone health. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab2008; 22: 813–829.
54.
GilbertS, Chen T, Hutchinson ID, et al.Dynamic contact mechanics on the tibial plateau of the human knee during activities of daily living. J Biomech2014; 47: 2006–2012.
55.
HernandezCBeaupreGKellerT, et al.The influence of bone volume fraction and ash fraction on bone strength and modulus. Bone2001; 29: 74–78.
56.
NazarianAStechowDVZurakowskiD, et al.Bone volume fraction explains the variation in strength and stiffness of cancellous bone affected by metastatic cancer and osteoporosis. Calcif Tissue Int2008; 83: 368–379.
57.
DingMDanielsenCCHvidI, et al.Three-dimensional microarchitecture of adolescent cancellous bone. Bone2012; 51: 953–960.
58.
BregoliCBiffiCATuissiA, et al.Effect of trabecular architectures on the mechanical response in osteoporotic and healthy human bone. Med Biol Eng Comput2024; 62: 1–19.
59.
KazemiMWilliamsJL. Properties of cartilage–subchondral bone junctions: a narrative review with specific focus on the growth plate. Cartilage2021; 13(2_suppl): 16S–33S.
60.
HuYJ. Microstructure and biomechanics of the subchondral bone in the development of knee osteoarthritis. New York, United States: Columbia University, 2021.
61.
HuYJ, Yu YE, Cooper HJ, et al.Mechanical and structural properties of articular cartilage and subchondral bone in human osteoarthritic knees. J Bone Miner Res2024; 39: zjae094.
62.
ChenY, Hu Y, Yu YE, et al.Subchondral trabecular rod loss and plate thickening in the development of osteoarthritis. J Bone Miner Res2018; 33: 316–327.
63.
RiesC, Boese CK, Stürznickel J, et al.Age-related changes of micro-morphological subchondral bone properties in the healthy femoral head. Osteoarthritis Cartilage2020; 28: 1437–1447.
64.
PetersJRHoogenboomMAbinzanoF, et al.Tissue growth as a mechanism for collagen fiber alignment in articular cartilage. Sci Rep-Uk2024; 14: 31121.
65.
MalikSHerronTMabroukA, et al.Tibial plateau fractures. In: NaomiR (ed) StatPearls. Treasure Island, FL: StatPearls, 2022.
66.
HashemiJ, Chandrashekar N, Gill B, et al.The geometry of the tibial plateau and its influence on the biomechanics of the tibiofemoral joint. J Bone Jt Surg Inc2008; 90: 2724–2734.
67.
BennellKLBowlesKAWangY, et al.Higher dynamic medial knee load predicts greater cartilage loss over 12 months in medial knee osteoarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis2011; 70: 1770–1774.
68.
NhaKW, Dorj A, Feng J, et al.Application of computational lower extremity model to investigate different muscle activities and joint force patterns in knee osteoarthritis patients during walking. (in English), Comput Math Methods Med2013; 2013: 314280.
69.
MootanahR, Imhauser CW, Reisse F, et al.Development and validation of a computational model of the knee joint for the evaluation of surgical treatments for osteoarthritis. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin2014; 17: 1502–1517.
70.
HolmdahlDEIBoE. The contact between the articular cartilage and the medullary cavities of the bone. Acta Orthop Scand1950; 20: 156–165.
71.
MadryHvan DijkCNMueller-GerblM. The basic science of the subchondral bone. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc2010; 18: 419–433.
72.
PouranBArbabiVBleysRLAW, et al.Solute transport at the interface of cartilage and subchondral bone plate: effect of micro-architecture. J Biomech2017; 52: 148–154.
73.
GrahamBTMooreACBurrisDL, et al.Sliding enhances fluid and solute transport into buried articular cartilage contacts. Osteoarthritis Cartilage2017; 25: 2100–2107.
74.
JohnstonJDMasriBAWilsonDR. Computed tomography topographic mapping of subchondral density (CT-TOMASD) in osteoarthritic and normal knees: methodological development and preliminary findings. Osteoarthritis Cartilage2009; 17: 1319–1326.
75.
ZhuJZhuYXiaoW, et al.Instability and excessive mechanical loading mediate subchondral bone changes to induce osteoarthritis. Ann Transl Med2020; 8: 350.
76.
HartNHNimphiusSRantalainenT, et al.Mechanical basis of bone strength: influence of bone material, bone structure and muscle action. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact2017; 17: 114–139.
77.
CurreyJD. How well are bones designed to resist fracture?J Bone Miner Res2003; 18: 591–598.
78.
OzciviciE, Luu YK, Adler B, et al.Mechanical signals as anabolic agents in bone. Nat Rev Rheumatol2010; 6: 50–59.
79.
HuiskesR. If bone is the answer, then what is the question?J Anat2000; 197: 145–156.
