In vivo surface strain and stereology of the frontal and maxillary bones of sheep: Implications for the structural design of the mammalian skull

Does the skull of the sheep behave as a tube or as a complex of independent bones linked by sutures? Is the architecture within cranial bones optimized to local strain alignment? We attempted to answer these questions for the sheep by recording from rosette strain gauges on each frontal and maxillary bone and from single‐axis gauges on each dentary of five sheep while they fed on hay. Bone structure was assessed at each rosette gauge site by stereological analysis of high‐resolution radiographs. Structural and strain orientations were tested for statistical agreement. Ranges of strain magnitudes were ±1200 μϵ on the mandible, ±650 μϵ on the frontals, and ±400 μϵ on the maxillae. Each gauge site experienced one strain signal when on the working (chewing) side and a different one when on the balancing (nonchewing) side. The two signals differed in mode, magnitude, and orientation. For example, on the working side, maxillary gauges were under mean compressive strains of –132 μϵ (S.D., 73.3 μϵ), oriented rostroventrally at 25°–70° to the long axis of the skull. On the balancing side, the same gauges were under mean tensile strains of +319 μϵ (S.D., 193.9 μϵ), at greater than 65° to the cranial axis. Strain patterns on the frontals are consistent with torsion and bending of the whole skull, indicating some degree of tube‐like mechanical behavior. Frontal and maxillary strains also showed a degree of individual loading, resulting from modulation of strains across sutures and local effects of muscle activity. The sheep skull seems to behave as a tube made of a complex of independent bones. Structural orientation was in statistically significant agreement with the orientation of working‐side compressive principal strain ϵ2, even though principal tensile strains may be as large or larger. Cranial bone architecture in sheep is not optimized to both strain signals it experiences. Anat Rec 264:325–338, 2001. © 2001 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.