FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / PLoS One / The presence of Wormian bones increases the fracture resista...
PloS one2021; 16(4); e0249451; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249451

The presence of Wormian bones increases the fracture resistance of equine cranial bone.

Abstract: Wormian (intrasutural) bones are small, irregular bones, that are found in the cranial sutures of the skull. The occurrence of Wormian bones in human skulls has been well documented but few studies have detected the presence of such bones in domestic animals. Although some research has linked the presence of Wormian bones to bone pathology, its anatomical significance in healthy individuals is not known. To the best of our knowledge, no previous study has examined the biomechanical features of Wormian bone. This study uses microCT imaging of the parietal bone region to determine the frequency of occurrence of Wormian bones in horse skulls and, through 3-point bending tests, to calculate the mechanical differences that result from the presence of such bones. In addition, bone properties such as bone mineral density (BMD) and stiffness were measured and analysed to determine the influence of Wormian bone. Our findings on 54 specimens taken from 10 horses (ages ranging from 4 to 29 years) showed that Wormian bone was present in 70% of subjects and that its occurrence was unrelated to age or sex. 3-point bend tests revealed that the stiffness normalised by cross section area (P = 0.038) was lower in samples where Wormian bone was present. An idealised Finite Element simulation confirmed that the presence of Wormian bone reduced the maximum stress and strain, as well as their distribution throughout the sample. We consequently conclude that the presence of Wormian bones, which are confined to the calvaria, increase the compliance of the bone and reduce the likelihood of skull fracture. As all skull samples were collected from a local abattoir, ethical approval was not required for this work.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2021-04-16 PubMed ID: 33861736PubMed Central: PMC8051753DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249451Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article
  • Research Support
  • Non-U.S. Gov't

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

The research examines the impact of Wormian bones on the fracture resistance of horse skulls, revealing that the presence of such bones creates a lower likelihood of skull fractures.

Introduction to the Study

  • The study focuses on Wormian bones which are smaller, irregular bones found within the cranial sutures of the skull. While these bones have been extensively studied in human skulls, their presence has been less often documented in the skulls of domestic animals.
  • The goal of this research was to understand the biomechanical features of Wormian bones, an area that had not been previously explored, and discern their potential role in skull fracture resistance.

Methodology of the Research

  • Advanced microCT imaging technique was used to determine the occurrence frequency of Wormian bones in horse skulls.
  • The mechanical difference caused by these bones was calculated using 3-point bending tests.
  • Various bone properties such as bone mineral density (BMD) and stiffness were measured and analysed to further understand the influence of Wormian bones on the overall bone structure.

Results of the Study

  • The study used 54 specimens collected from 10 horses, varying in age from 4 to 29 years.
  • It was found that Wormian bones were present in 70% of the examined subjects. The presence of these bones was unrelated to the horse’s age or sex.
  • The 3-point bending tests revealed that the stiffness, normalised by cross section area, was lower in samples where Wormian bones were present.
  • An idealised Finite Element simulation supported these findings, indicating that the presence of Wormian bones reduced maximum stress and strain as well as distributed these variables more evenly through the sample.

Conclusions from the Research

  • The study concluded that the presence of Wormian bones, which are only found in the calvaria of the skull, increases the compliance of the bone structure.
  • This leads to a reduction in the likelihood of skull fractures, providing an insight into the function of these irregular bones within a horse’s skull.
  • However, the authors note that since all skull samples were sourced from a local abattoir, ethical approval was not required for this work.

Cite This Article

APA
Zambrano M LA, Kilroy D, Kumar A, Gilchrist MD, Ní Annaidh A. (2021). The presence of Wormian bones increases the fracture resistance of equine cranial bone. PLoS One, 16(4), e0249451. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249451

Publication

PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
NlmUniqueID: 101285081
Country: United States
Language: English
Volume: 16
Issue: 4
Pages: e0249451
PII: e0249451

Researcher Affiliations

Zambrano M, Lilibeth A
  • School of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Kilroy, David
  • School of Veterinary Medicine, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Kumar, Arun
  • School of Veterinary Medicine, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Gilchrist, Michael D
  • School of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Ní Annaidh, Aisling
  • School of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.

MeSH Terms

  • Animals
  • Disease Resistance
  • Fractures, Bone / epidemiology
  • Fractures, Bone / veterinary
  • Horse Diseases / epidemiology
  • Horses
  • Skull / injuries

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

References

This article includes 47 references
  1. Burrows AM, Caruso KA, Mooney MP, Smith TD, Losken HW, Siegel MI. Sutural bone frequency in synostotic rabbit crania.. Am J Phys Anthropol 1997 Apr;102(4):555-63.
    pubmed: 9140544doi: 10.1002/(sici)1096-8644(199704)102:4<555::aid-ajpa9>3.0.co;2-qgoogle scholar: lookup
  2. Brothwell D. The use of non-metrical characters of the skull in differentiating populations.. Dtsch Ges Anthr 1959;6: 103–109.
  3. Pucek Z. The occurrence of Wormian bones (ossicula wormiana) in some mammals.. Acta Theriol (Warsz) 1962;VI: 33–51.
    doi: 10.4098/AT.arch.62-3google scholar: lookup
  4. Goto T, Aramaki M, Yoshihashi H, Nishimura G, Hasegawa Y, Takahashi T, Ishii T, Fukushima Y, Kosaki K. Large fontanelles are a shared feature of haploinsufficiency of RUNX2 and its co-activator CBFB.. Congenit Anom (Kyoto) 2004 Dec;44(4):225-9.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1741-4520.2004.00043.xpubmed: 15566413google scholar: lookup
  5. Barberini F, Bruner E, Cartolari R, Franchitto G, Heyn R, Ricci F, Manzi G. An unusually-wide human bregmatic Wormian bone: anatomy, tomographic description, and possible significance.. Surg Radiol Anat 2008 Nov;30(8):683-7.
    doi: 10.1007/s00276-008-0371-0pubmed: 18523715google scholar: lookup
  6. Kozerska M, Skrzat J, Walocha J, Wrobel A, Leszczynski B. Imaging of the Wormian bones using microcomputed tomography.. Folia Med Cracov 2013;53(4):21-8.
    pubmed: 25556508
  7. Khan AA, Asari MA, Hassan A. Unusual presence of Wormian (sutural) bones in human skulls.. Folia Morphol (Warsz) 2011 Nov;70(4):291-4.
    pubmed: 22117248
  8. Semler O, Cheung MS, Glorieux FH, Rauch F. Wormian bones in osteogenesis imperfecta: Correlation to clinical findings and genotype.. Am J Med Genet A 2010 Jul;152A(7):1681-7.
    doi: 10.1002/ajmg.a.33448pubmed: 20583157google scholar: lookup
  9. Cremin B, Goodman H, Spranger J, Beighton P. Wormian bones in osteogenesis imperfecta and other disorders.. Skeletal Radiol 1982;8(1):35-8.
    doi: 10.1007/BF00361366pubmed: 7079781google scholar: lookup
  10. Bennett KA. The etiology and genetics of wormian bones.. Am J Phys Anthropol 1965 Sep;23(3):255-60.
    doi: 10.1002/ajpa.1330230313pubmed: 5861223google scholar: lookup
  11. O'Loughlin VD. Effects of different kinds of cranial deformation on the incidence of wormian bones.. Am J Phys Anthropol 2004 Feb;123(2):146-55.
    doi: 10.1002/ajpa.10304pubmed: 14730648google scholar: lookup
  12. El-Najjar M, Dawson GL. The effect of artificial cranial deformation on the incidence of Wormian bones in the lambdoidal suture.. Am J Phys Anthropol 1977 Jan;46(1):155-60.
    doi: 10.1002/ajpa.1330460119pubmed: 835687google scholar: lookup
  13. Bellary SS, Steinberg A, Mirzayan N, Shirak M, Tubbs RS, Cohen-Gadol AA, Loukas M. Wormian bones: a review.. Clin Anat 2013 Nov;26(8):922-7.
    doi: 10.1002/ca.22262pubmed: 23959948google scholar: lookup
  14. McGeady TA, Quinn PJ, FitzPatrick ES, Ryan MT, Kilroy D, Lonergan P. Veterinary Embryology.. 2nd ed. Wiley-Blackwell; 2017.
  15. PRITCHARD JJ, SCOTT JH, GIRGIS FG. The structure and development of cranial and facial sutures.. J Anat 1956 Jan;90(1):73-86.
    pmc: PMC1244823pubmed: 13295153
  16. Rafferty KL, Herring SW, Marshall CD. Biomechanics of the rostrum and the role of facial sutures.. J Morphol 2003 Jul;257(1):33-44.
    doi: 10.1002/jmor.10104pmc: PMC2819158pubmed: 12740894google scholar: lookup
  17. Moazen M, Curtis N, O'Higgins P, Jones ME, Evans SE, Fagan MJ. Assessment of the role of sutures in a lizard skull: a computer modelling study.. Proc Biol Sci 2009 Jan 7;276(1654):39-46.
    doi: 10.1098/rspb.2008.0863pmc: PMC2614251pubmed: 18765341google scholar: lookup
  18. Curtis N, Jones ME, Evans SE, O'Higgins P, Fagan MJ. Cranial sutures work collectively to distribute strain throughout the reptile skull.. J R Soc Interface 2013 Sep 6;10(86):20130442.
    doi: 10.1098/rsif.2013.0442pmc: PMC3730698pubmed: 23804444google scholar: lookup
  19. Hylander WL, Picq PG, Johnson KR. Masticatory-stress hypotheses and the supraorbital region of primates.. Am J Phys Anthropol 1991 Sep;86(1):1-36.
    doi: 10.1002/ajpa.1330860102pubmed: 1951658google scholar: lookup
  20. Ravosa MJ, Ross CF, Williams SH, Costley DB. Allometry of masticatory loading parameters in mammals.. Anat Rec (Hoboken) 2010 Apr;293(4):557-71.
    doi: 10.1002/ar.21133pubmed: 20235312google scholar: lookup
  21. Hylander WL, Johnson KR. In vivo bone strain patterns in the zygomatic arch of macaques and the significance of these patterns for functional interpretations of craniofacial form.. Am J Phys Anthropol 1997 Feb;102(2):203-32.
    pubmed: 9066901doi: 10.1002/(sici)1096-8644(199702)102:2<203::aid-ajpa5>3.0.co;2-zgoogle scholar: lookup
  22. Sisson S. The anatomy of the domestic animals.. 4th ed. Philadelphia & London: W.B. Saunders Company; 1953.
  23. An Y, Draughn R. Mechanical testing of bone and the bone-implant interface.. 1st ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2000.
    doi: 10.1201/9781420073560google scholar: lookup
  24. Unger S, Blauth M, Schmoelz W. Effects of three different preservation methods on the mechanical properties of human and bovine cortical bone.. Bone 2010 Dec;47(6):1048-53.
    doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2010.08.012pubmed: 20736094google scholar: lookup
  25. Ojanen X, Isaksson H, Töyräs J, Turunen MJ, Malo MK, Halvari A, Jurvelin JS. Relationships between tissue composition and viscoelastic properties in human trabecular bone.. J Biomech 2015 Jan 21;48(2):269-75.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2014.11.034pubmed: 25498367google scholar: lookup
  26. Rahmoun J, Auperrin A, Delille R, Naceur H, Drazetic P. Characterization and micromechanical modeling of the human cranial bone elastic properties.. Mech Res Commun 2014;60: 7–14.
    doi: 10.1016/j.mechrescom.2014.04.001google scholar: lookup
  27. Auperrin A, Delille R, Lesueur D, Bruyère K, Masson C, Drazétic P. Geometrical and material parameters to assess the macroscopic mechanical behaviour of fresh cranial bone samples.. J Biomech 2014 Mar 21;47(5):1180-5.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2013.10.060pubmed: 24529359google scholar: lookup
  28. International ASTM. ASTM D 7250/D 7250M Standard practice for determining sandwich beam flexural and shear stiffness.. Annu B ASTM Stand 2009;i: 1–8.
  29. Hibbeler RC. Mechanics of materials.. Prentice Hall Pearson Education, Inc; 2011.
  30. Gere JM. Mechanics of Materials.. 6th ed. Thomson Learning, Inc; 2004.
  31. Helgason B, Perilli E, Schileo E, Taddei F, Brynjólfsson S, Viceconti M. Mathematical relationships between bone density and mechanical properties: a literature review.. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2008 Feb;23(2):135-46.
    doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2007.08.024pubmed: 17931759google scholar: lookup
  32. Motherway JA, Verschueren P, Van der Perre G, Vander Sloten J, Gilchrist MD. The mechanical properties of cranial bone: the effect of loading rate and cranial sampling position.. J Biomech 2009 Sep 18;42(13):2129-35.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2009.05.030pubmed: 19640538google scholar: lookup
  33. Butaud P, Foltête E, Ouisse M. Sandwich structures with tunable damping properties: On the use of shape memory polymer as viscoelastic core.. Compos Struct 2016;153: 401–408.
    doi: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2016.06.040google scholar: lookup
  34. Huang Z, Qin Z, Chu F. Vibration and damping characteristics of sandwich plates with viscoelastic core.. JVC/Journal Vib Control 2014;22: 1876–1888.
    doi: 10.1177/1077546314545527google scholar: lookup
  35. Rikards R. Analysis of laminated structures.. Course Lect Riga, Latvia; 1999.
  36. Marti B, Sirinelli D, Maurin L, Carpentier E. Wormian bones in a general paediatric population.. Diagn Interv Imaging 2013 Apr;94(4):428-32.
    doi: 10.1016/j.diii.2013.01.001pubmed: 23352712google scholar: lookup
  37. Keaveny TM, Morgan EF, Yeh OC. Bone Mechanics.. Stand Handb Biomed Eng Des 2004; 8.1–8.23.
    doi: 10.1385/1-59259-366-6:369google scholar: lookup
  38. Jaslow CR. Mechanical properties of cranial sutures.. J Biomech 1990;23(4):313-21.
    doi: 10.1016/0021-9290(90)90059-cpubmed: 2335529google scholar: lookup
  39. Margulies SS, Thibault KL. Infant skull and suture properties: measurements and implications for mechanisms of pediatric brain injury.. J Biomech Eng 2000 Aug;122(4):364-71.
    doi: 10.1115/1.1287160pubmed: 11036559google scholar: lookup
  40. Coats B, Margulies SS. Material properties of human infant skull and suture at high rates.. J Neurotrauma 2006 Aug;23(8):1222-32.
    doi: 10.1089/neu.2006.23.1222pubmed: 16928180google scholar: lookup
  41. Auperrin A. Caracactérisation tissulaire pour la détermination du comportement de l’os cranien: essais mécaniques et imagerie médicale.. Université de Valenciennes et du Hainaut-Cambresis, Francais. 2009.
  42. Maloul A, Fialkov J, Whyne CM. Characterization of the bending strength of craniofacial sutures.. J Biomech 2013 Mar 15;46(5):912-7.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2012.12.016pubmed: 23352773google scholar: lookup
  43. Wang J, Zou D, Li Z, Huang P, Li D, Shao Y, Wang H, Chen Y. Mechanical properties of cranial bones and sutures in 1-2-year-old infants.. Med Sci Monit 2014 Oct 3;20:1808-13.
    doi: 10.12659/MSM.892278pmc: PMC4199403pubmed: 25279966google scholar: lookup
  44. Torimitsu S, Nishida Y, Takano T, Koizumi Y, Hayakawa M, Yajima D, Inokuchi G, Makino Y, Motomura A, Chiba F, Iwase H. Statistical analysis of biomechanical properties of the adult sagittal suture using a bending method in a Japanese forensic sample.. Forensic Sci Int 2015 Apr;249:101-6.
    doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2015.01.030pubmed: 25679987google scholar: lookup
  45. Kriewall TJ, McPherson GK, Tsai AC. Bending properties and ash content of fetal cranial bone.. J Biomech 1981;14(2):73-9.
    doi: 10.1016/0021-9290(81)90166-4pubmed: 7240269google scholar: lookup
  46. McPherson GK, Kriewall TJ. The elastic modulus of fetal cranial bone: a first step towards an understanding of the biomechanics of fetal head molding.. J Biomech 1980;13(1):9-16.
    doi: 10.1016/0021-9290(80)90003-2pubmed: 7354097google scholar: lookup
  47. Wang L, Cheung JT, Pu F, Li D, Zhang M, Fan Y. Why do woodpeckers resist head impact injury: a biomechanical investigation.. PLoS One 2011;6(10):e26490.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0026490pmc: PMC3202538pubmed: 22046293google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 2 times.
  1. Surmik D, Słowiak-Morkovina J, Szczygielski T, Kamaszewski M, Kalita S, Teschner EM, Dróżdż D, Duda P, Rothschild BM, Konietzko-Meier D. An insight into cancer palaeobiology: does the Mesozoic neoplasm support tissue organization field theory of tumorigenesis?. BMC Ecol Evol 2022 Dec 13;22(1):143.
    doi: 10.1186/s12862-022-02098-3pubmed: 36513967google scholar: lookup
  2. Alter NE, Rogers JL, Puc M, Hoang A, Galdyn I, Bonfield CM, Pontell M, Golinko M. Wormian bones: expanded differential diagnosis and implications for abnormal head shape in infancy. Childs Nerv Syst 2026 Jan 3;42(1):3.
    doi: 10.1007/s00381-025-06978-zpubmed: 41483067google scholar: lookup
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,034 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.