Comparison of nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy with dual-photon absorptiometry and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry in the measurement of thoracic vertebral bone mineral density: compressive force versus bone mineral

Nuclear magnetic resonance studies of bone water

Mineralized bone tissue has a significant water component. Bone water is associated with the collagen fibers or mineral fraction or occurring as pore water of the Haversian and lacunocanalicular system. Among the multiple physiologic functions that include signaling and providing to bone its viscoelastic properties, bone water enables the transport of ions and nutrients to and waste products from the cells. In addition, it plays a key role during mineralization whereby collagen-bound water is gradually replaced by calcium apatite-like mineral. In this review it is shown how nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) allows the study of various physiologically relevant properties of bone water nondestructively. Isotope exchange experiments are described from which the apparent water diffusion coefficient can be calculated. The method is based on monitoring the migration of H2O into the D2O after immersion of the specimen in heavy water. Data obtained from rabbit cortical bone in the normal and mineral-depleted skeleton provide evidence for the hypothesized reciprocal relationship between bone water and mineral. Further, from the diffusion coefficient (Da = (7.8+/-1.5) x 10(-7) cm2/s) measured at 40 degrees C it can be inferred that diffusive transport of small molecules from the bone's microvascular system to the osteocytes occurs within minutes. Finally, whereas isotope exchange is not feasible in vivo, it is shown that bone water can be imaged by proton MRI.

Water content measured by proton-deuteron exchange NMR predicts bone mineral density and mechanical properties

NMR was used to measure matrix water content in normal and hypomineralized cortical bone. Water content showed an inverse relationship with mineral content, suggesting it could serve as a surrogate measure for the bone's degree of mineralization.

INTRODUCTION

So far, true bone mineral density (DMB; degree of mineralization of bone) can not be measured nondestructively.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Here, a new technique combining 1H nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy and deuterium isotope exchange was used to measure water content in cortical bone from two groups of rabbits: a control group and a group fed a low-phosphorus (P) diet to induce hypomineralization of the bone matrix.

RESULTS

NMR-derived water content was higher in the P-depleted group and showed an inverse relationship with mineral content (measured gravimetrically and by 31p NMR). Hypomineralized bone was found to be weaker than normal bone as demonstrated by mechanical testing. More importantly, the data showed a strong inverse correlation between water content and bone mechanical properties, which indicates that water content could be predictive of the bone's mechanical competence.

CONCLUSIONS

Water content could potentially serve as a surrogate measure for the bone's degree of mineralization, and this technique could be used to study other disorders of mineral homeostasis known to alter the mineralization state of the matrix. Although the method presented here is not suitable for in vivo measurements of bone water content, the authors have previously shown that 1H NMR images of bone can be acquired; thus, noninvasive quantification of bone water may be feasible.

Bone mass, areal, and volumetric bone density are equally accurate, sensitive, and specific surrogates of the breaking strength of the vertebral body: an in vitro study

The validity of the bone mineral density (BMD) measurement depends on its accuracy as a predictor of the breaking strength of bone. As the breaking strength is proportional to the square of the apparent density, a small error in the calculation of BMD may result in a larger error in the predicted bone strength. The aims of this study were (i) to determine whether inaccuracies in the measurement of the dimensions, projected area, and volume of the vertebral body (used to derive the areal and volumetric BMD) result in errors in the predicted breaking strength and (ii) to compare the accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of bone mineral content (BMC), areal BMD, volumetric BMD, and volumetric bone mineral apparent density (BMAD) as surrogates of bone strength. We measured the BMC (by densitometry), dimensions and volume (using calipers, densitometry, the Carter et al. and Peel and Eastell methods), and breaking strength (using the Instron 1114 apparatus, Newtons, N) of 22 vertebral body specimens. All methods resulted in errors in height, width, and depth between -11.3 +/- 1.0 and 30.4 +/- 1.8% relative to the "gold" standard caliper method. The vertebral body volume (of 38.0 +/- 1.2 cm3) measured by submersion was used as the gold standard to derive the volumetric BMD gold standard (of 0.162 +/- 0.01 g/cm3). All methods, except the Peel and Eastell method, resulted in errors ranging between -10.7 +/- 1.5 and 56.9 +/- 3.4% in vertebral body volume and -35.6 +/- 1.5 to 12.6 +/- 1.8% in volumetric BMD (all p < 0.0005). The same absolute value for volumetric BMD predicted a breaking strength that differed according to the method used to derive BMD. For example, a volumetric BMD of 0.162 g/cm3 predicted a breaking strength of 6208 N (submersion method), 5473 N (caliper method), 6095 N (Peel and Eastell method), 7697 N (DXA method), and 9470 N (Carter et al. method). The mean volumetric BMD derived by each method differed (0.181, 0.165, 0.133, and 0.104 g/cm3, respectively). However, all were accurate; each predicted a similar breaking strength (6177, 6217, 6209, and 6221 N respectively). Likewise, breaking strengths predicted by the mean BMC, areal BMD by calipers, and areal BMD by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) were 6267, 6214, and 6244 N, respectively. The methods were equally sensitive; a 1 standard deviation (SD) decrease in volumetric BMD resulted in a similar decrease in the breaking strength of 1818 (caliper), 2080 (Peel and Eastell), 2001 (DXA), and 1625 N (BMAD by Carter et al). A 1 SD decrease in BMC, areal BMD (using calipers) and areal BMD (using DXA) predicted a decrease in the breaking strength of 2019, 1738, and 1825 N, respectively. All methods were equally specific; the variance in bone strength explained by bone mass did not differ for volumetric BMD (38-61% depending on the method), BMC (58%), or areal BMD (48%). In conclusion, despite errors in the measurement of the dimensions of the vertebral body, bone mass, areal, and volumetric bone density are equally accurate, sensitive, and specific surrogates of the breaking strength of bone in vitro.