Fig. 5.

Mechanical analysis results. A. Compressive test model. B. Stress-strain curves of femoral head compressive tests. C. Stiffness of the normal, hollow, porous, mixed, and dense granules implanted in the femoral head model. D. Yield load of the normal, hollow, porous, mixed, and dense granules granules implanted in the femoral head model. E. Mechanical tests of surgical simulation samples in the standing posture. The number of “1–4” represented four strain gauges adhered around the femoral neck. F. Mechanical stress-strain curves of surgical simulation models in the standing position. G. Stiffness in the mechanical tests of normal, hollow, and bioceramic implanted proximal femur models in the standing position. H. Yield load of the normal, hollow, and bioceramic implanted proximal femur models in the standing position for mechanical tests. I. Micro-deformation of the four strain gauges under a load of 700 N. J. Micro-deformation of the four strain gauges under a load of 1400 N. K. 3D FEA. Von Mises stress cloud diagram under different degradations of the implanted β-TCP scaffold. L. 3D FEA. Displacement cloud diagram under different degradations of the implanted β-TCP scaffold. M. Changes in von Mises stress of the femoral head under different degrees of degradation (0, 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100%). N. Changes of displacement of the femoral head under different degrees of degradation (0, 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100%). O–Q: Clinical validation of mechanical recovery. (O) The bone trabeculae of the normal femoral head were regularly and tightly arranged in the direction of stress. The red frame indicates the arrangement of the bone trabeculae subjected to compressive stress in the femoral head. (P) The trabecular structure was destroyed by necrotic lesions (indicated by the arrow). (Q) Five years after β-TCP treatment, the regenerated bone trabeculae (indicated by arrows) were rearranged in the direction of normal stress. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.