resolution (~0.100–0.200 mm) have been developed that can capture some aspects of bone micro-architecture. Alternatively 3D models created using clinical-CT and MRI can be used to virtually simulate loading on a computer and calculate bone mechanical properties. Analysed together these morphological and mechanical data sets might allow clinicians to provide screening programmes for osteoporosis and calculate individual fracture risk. Especially if applied as part of a holistic approach utilising patient meta-data on risk factors for metabolic bone disease (e.g. FRAX). As well as improve primary and secondary care by setting treat to target criteria for pharmacological therapies and planning surgical interventions or following up treatment outcomes. Conclusion In the short to mid term the expense of 3D imaging and (in the case of CT) the risks associated with ionising radiation are going to restrict image resolution. Therefore, in order to achieve the goal of bringing bone quality from bench to bedside, future research needs to be directed towards better analysis of 3D bone geometry at sub-optimal resolution.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Abel et al. (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: