Analyses of muscular mass and function: the impact on bone mineral density and peak muscle mass

Bone density and bone mass are commonly regarded as the essential parameters to describe fracture risk in osteology. Because fractures primarily depend on bone strength and secondarily on bone mass and density, bone strength should be the main parameter to describe fracture risk. The quantitative description of bone strength has the prerequisite that bone geometry is assessed despite bone density. Thus, volumetric osteodensitometric methods should be preferred, which enable the physician to evaluate parameters primarily associated with bone modeling or remodeling. Modeling describes the adaptation of bone geometry to applied muscular forces in contrast to remodeling representing bone turnover. The adaptation of bone geometry to muscle forces led to the term functional muscle–bone unit, which enables the physician to differentiate between primary and secondary bone diseases. Primary bone diseases are characterized by a defective adaptation of bone to muscle forces in contrast to secondary bone diseases, which are primary diseases of the neuromuscular system. Because muscle forces are essential in the feedback loop of bone adaptation to forces (mechanostat), the assessment of muscle function has become an essential part of osteologic diagnostics in pediatrics. Dynamometric and mechanographic methods have been introduced to properly characterize kinetic aspects of muscle function in children and adolescents. Therefore, emphasis should be put on the assessment of muscle function despite the evaluation of osteodensitometric parameters in pediatric osteology.