English
 
Help Privacy Policy Disclaimer
  Advanced SearchBrowse

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT

Released

Journal Article

Newly formed and remodeled human bone exhibits differences in the mineralization process

MPS-Authors
/persons/resource/persons136530

Roschger,  Andreas
Wolfgang Wagermaier, Biomaterialien, Max Planck Institute of Colloids and Interfaces, Max Planck Society;

/persons/resource/persons121980

Wagermaier,  Wolfgang
Wolfgang Wagermaier, Biomaterialien, Max Planck Institute of Colloids and Interfaces, Max Planck Society;

/persons/resource/persons121822

Schmidt,  Ingo
Wolfgang Wagermaier, Biomaterialien, Max Planck Institute of Colloids and Interfaces, Max Planck Society;

/persons/resource/persons122011

Weinkamer,  Richard
Richard Weinkamer, Biomaterialien, Max Planck Institute of Colloids and Interfaces, Max Planck Society;

/persons/resource/persons121298

Fratzl,  Peter
Peter Fratzl, Biomaterialien, Max Planck Institute of Colloids and Interfaces, Max Planck Society;

External Resource
No external resources are shared
Fulltext (public)
There are no public fulltexts stored in PuRe
Supplementary Material (public)
There is no public supplementary material available
Citation

Roschger, A., Wagermaier, W., Gamsjaeger, S., Hassler, N., Schmidt, I., Blouin, S., et al. (2020). Newly formed and remodeled human bone exhibits differences in the mineralization process. Acta Biomaterialia, 104, 221-230. doi:10.1016/j.actbio.2020.01.004.


Cite as: http://hdl.handle.net/21.11116/0000-0005-9C0B-0
Abstract
During human skeletal growth, bone is formed via different processes. Two of them are: new bone formation by depositing bone at the periosteal (outer) surface and bone remodeling corresponding to a local renewal of tissue. Since in remodeling formation is preceded by resorption, we hypothesize that modeling and remodeling could require radically different transport paths for ionic precursors of mineralization. While remodeling may recycle locally resorbed mineral, modeling implies the transport over large distances to the site of bone apposition. Therefore, we searched for potential differences of size, arrangement and chemical composition of mineral particles just below surfaces of modeling and remodeling sites in femur midshaft cross-sections from healthy children. These bone sites were mapped using scanning synchrotron X-ray scattering, Raman microspectroscopy, energy dispersive X-ray analysis and quantitative backscattered electron microscopy. The results show clear differences in mineral particle size and composition between the sites, which cannot be explained by a change in the rate of mineral apposition or accumulation. At periosteal modeling sites, mineral crystals are distinctly larger, display higher crystallinity and exhibit a lower calcium to phosphorus ratio and elevated Na and Mg content. The latter may originate from Mg used for phase stabilization of mineral precursors and therefore indicate different time periods for mineral transport. We conclude that the mineralization process is distinctively different between modeling and remodeling sites due to varying requirements for the transport distance and, therefore, the stability of non-crystalline ionic precursors, resulting in distinct compositions of the deposited mineral phase.