Atlas of Human Skeleton Hardness Obtained Using the Micro‐indentation Technique

Abstract

Objectives Measure and systematically evaluate the distribution of microhardness in the human skeleton. Methods Three fresh corpses were obtained, aged 62 (male), 45 (female), and 58 years (male). Soft tissues were removed, and all axial and unilateral appendicular bones were freshly harvested. All three skeletons were examined by X‐ray and computed tomography (CT) to exclude skeletal pathology. Only bones from donors with no known skeletal pathology were included in the study. Axial and unilateral appendicular skeleton bones from each of the three donors were obtained, except for ear ossicles, hyoid bone, tailbone, and 14 phalanges of the foot, for which samples were difficult to obtain. Precision bone specimens with a thickness of 3 mm, which were cut with a Buehler IsoMet 11‐1280‐250 low‐speed diamond saw (Buehler, USA), were obtained from all important anatomic sites in a direction perpendicular to the mechanical axis of each bone. Micro‐indentation (the Vickers hardness test) was performed on the surface of each specimen using a microhardness tester with a diamond indenter. Hardness value (HV) was computed for each indentation. Each bone specimen was divided into several regions of interest. Indentations were carefully made and computed. Then we analyzed the data to identify hardness distribution rules at different anatomic sites. Results In total, 5360 indentations were made in 1072 regions of interest in each donor. Hardness of the axial and appendicular bones were all inhomogeneous depending on the anatomic sites, but the distribution of microhardness followed certain rules. The mean hardness value ranged from 24.46 HV (HV = hardness value, kgf/mm2) for the sacrum to 53.20 HV for the shaft of the tibia. The diaphysis was harder than the metaphysis, and the proximal and distal epiphysis had lower values (8.85%– 40.39%) than the diaphysis. Among the long bone diaphyses, the tibia cortical bone (51.20 HV) was the hardest, harder than the humerus (47.25 HV), the ulna (43.26 HV), the radius (42.54 HV), and the femur (47.53 HV). However, in some anatomic sites such as the lumbar vertebra (cortical bone 32.86 HV, cancellous bone 31.25 HV), the cortical shells were sometimes not harder than the internal cancellous bones. The lumbar vertebra (32.86 HV) was harder than the cervical vertebra (28.51 HV) and the thoracic vertebra (29.01 HV). Conclusions The distribution of microhardness in the human skeleton follows certain rules. These distribution rules could be used to predict the mechanical properties of bone and progress in this field could provide data for the basis of a new three‐dimensional printing technique, which may lead to new perspectives for custom‐made implants.

Keywords

• Human skeleton
• Implant Design
• Indentation
• Mechanical Properties
• Microhardness