Effects of mechanical vibration on bone – a critical review

ABSTRACT

The benefits of reduced treatment time and comfort for patients undergoing corrective dental treatment with devices gave rise to the creation and modification of long-standing treatment protocols. One of the protocols used for these purposes is mechanical vibration.

Objective: This review aimed to study the effects of mechanical vibration on bone.

Methods: Portal Capes (periodicos.capes.gov.br) database was searched using the keywords “vibration” and “bone” with no date limit. Based on the title and abstract, the first 50 relevant studies were retrieved. THE measured frequencies were between 4 and 150 Hz. Regarding exposure time and the number of applications, the variation is so wide that the average or median would not represent a realistic sample pattern.

Results: In the retrieved studies, 41 reported improvements in bone conditions. Research studies show that a reproducible protocol is being applied in most studies on the effects of mechanical vibration on bone tissue.

Conclusion: There is stimulation of bone biology, regardless of species, in the sense of osteogenesis in individuals exposed to high frequency mechanical vibration. To improve research protocols on the effects of vibrations on the body, more studies are needed.

Further details about basics of functional dentistry are accessible for you to learn on our website.

INTRODUCTION

Mechanical vibration occurs when a body leaves its resting state in a regular or irregular repetitive movement. It can be transmitted within bodies, including living organisms [1]. Vibration in the human body can have various effects depending mainly on amplitude, frequency, direction [1, 2], and the place where vibration enters the human body [1].

The most common deleterious effects are problems in the lumbar spine, loss of ability to see details quickly and smoothly, and the loss of the ability to have precise control and adjust this control. However, low frequency vibrations can improve vision [2]. Even vibration applied to the object may impair vision. Depending on the vibration, the individual sees the object moving back and forth, sees ghost images (overlay of images), or the image may disappear and reappear. The illumination, distance, and size of the object also influence visual change [2]. This variety of effects on living organisms can occur in the most diverse biological tasks and regulations [1]. Most recently, Lopes et al. [62], in a study to be published, have shown that vibration may improve readability.

Most studies address the unwanted effects of vibration on the body, but vibration sometimes cannot be avoided. It can be very pleasant like a child's lullaby, a rocking chair, or a hammock; or it can be a source of excitement like off-road vehicles, surfboards, skis, etc. In the area of health, it is used by physiotherapists to clean the lungs, to assist in hemodialysis, or it can be used for diagnosis. Moreover, it would have benefits for joints and bone tissue [1]. Both the benefits that vibration can bring to health, as well as deleterious effects, depend on a range of variables related to vibration, the organism receiving vibration, and the duration of exposure [1].

New treatment protocols are using mechanical vibration to accelerate and make tooth movement more comfortable for the patient [3,4]. There are some brands on the market like VPro Vpro+, or VPro5® with high frequency vibration and the AcceleDent® with low frequency vibration. This review aims to study what kind of effect mechanical vibration has on bone and if investigations have a reproducible protocol.

MECHANICAL VIBRATION

All vibration is characterized by having a frequency usually measured in Hertz (Hz) that quantifies the number of cycles per second, or oscillations per second of a wave. To obtain a certain frequency, three variables are interrelated: displacement, velocity, and acceleration. Also, there is a time of vibration exposure, a magnitude that does not interfere with the above. However, it plays an instrumental role in the response of an organism subjected to vibration [1, 2]. Fig. 1. shows how variations in velocity, acceleration, and displacement amplitudes are related to frequency. For more detailed information it is recommended to read Griffin [1].

Fig. 1. Simple graphical representation of the intercom between frequency, velocity, displacement, and acceleration in vibration

BONE BIOLOGY

Before addressing bone biology, it is worth mentioning that there is a range of systemic conditions that when the individual is subjected to more intense vibrations can worsen, even resulting in death (Norma BS 7085, 1989) [5]. This can be seen, for example in amusement parks that prohibit people with certain conditions (pregnancy, heart valves, pacemaker, skeletal muscle changes, etc.) from entering the attractions with regular vibration or irregular (shock) vibration. Therefore, before subjecting an individual to any vibration a precise anamnesis needs to be performed to avoid unpleasant side effects.

Bone activity in the human body is of fundamental importance in maintaining homeostasis both in fracture consolidation and bone mass maintenance, as well as in remodeling processes mainly on flat bones [6]. This hormonal regulation has a dual purpose, which is both to maintain this mass and to control calcemia, mainly through parathyroid hormone and calcitonin [6].

However, in addition to this chemical control, functional demand plays a particularly important role in the process of maintenance/increase of bone mass. Moss [7], reviewing his theory of functional matrix, postulates that electrical charges exist in bone tissue, many associated with bone fluids in the various spaces and intraosseous compartments.

According to the author, the electrical effects in these fluids would not be piezoelectric, but electrokinetic, originating from ionic membrane channels. Studying the various types of deformation that a bone exposed to tension can suffer, addresses the function of ionic channels activated by distension. This is similar to the one given by the periosteum during muscle function [7]. When activated in tensile-submitted osteocytes, they allow the passage of a certain size of ions among them K+, Ca2+, Na+, and Cs+. This determines an ionic flow that will generate an intracellular electric field [7]. This electrical potential of + 2 mV deforms the bone, generating both osteogenesis and osteolysis at distinct bone sites that vary with the polarity of the field and its vector (Wolff's Law) [6].

Research has been conducted to study the consequences of the most diverse functional demands, including vibration, on bone tissue. Addressing more specifically the latter, the studies range from old age trying to avoid osteoporosis [8], as in children as a stimulus of growth and increase of bone mass as prevention of fractures [9], the influence on fracture consolidation to the osteointegration of bone implants [10]. However, as the quality of vibration significantly affects the organic response, much has yet to be known [1].

In children, mechanical loads can increase bone size and mass and these gains may persist until adulthood [11] and may improve bone health throughout life [12]. In adults, despite the need for more knowledge, the results have indicated that vibration can increase bone mass, preventing or enhancing quality of life in the osteoporotic process [8, 10].

Vibration affects more than bones, nerves, blood vessels, and cardiovascular function in living beings. Excessive vibration levels can be potential causes of tissue and/or psychological injuries in the living being. Vertical vibration in humans with a frequency between 0 and 63 hertz for 8 h is reported to be the most harmful [15]. However, certain levels of whole-body vibration (WBV) can decrease adipogenesis, reduce triglyceride levels in the liver and increase bone volume and bone formation, but despite these beneficial effects, vibrations at similar frequencies and accelerations can cause effects on the autonomous nervous system, among them, increased blood pressure and heartbeat [16]. It is clear then, like any tool, vibration must be used in specific and controlled situations. This is both in the emission of vibration and the organism that receives it. Its indiscriminate use can have very unpleasant consequences. According to Griffin [1], the degree of WBV transmission to the body depends on the vibration transmissibility throughout the body and to the body, the dynamic interaction of the body with the points of contact with vibration, the effects caused at any location of this body and the emotions of the individual receiving the vibration. Moreover, the displacement, velocity, and acceleration of the waveform depend on frequency. The direction and duration of vibration exposure also significantly influence the body's response to the vibration stimulus.

Given the above, this study proposes to make a systematic literature review to verify whether the data presented in the works can be reproduced. This is because measurements represent a signature that can be compared with other similar sources [1]. That is, the methodology of the studies must be such that they can be repeated under the same conditions. It is intended to examine the effects of vibration on bone tissue.

METHODS

Using the keywords “vibration” and “bone” in an advanced search with no date limit, a search was performed in the Portal Capes (periodicos.capes.gov.br) database. Based on the title and abstract, the first 50 studies were recovered that proved suitable [8-10, 15-61].

Criteria for inclusion were data about osseous tissue, no matter what bone was studied or if general body bone density was the subject of the article. Any animal species studied, including humans, were accepted. In the studies, vibration amplitudes (displacement, velocity, and acceleration) were examined, as were the duration of vibration application, as well as the effects of vibration on the osseous tissue. During these studies, the reproducibility of the vibration, frequency, displacement, velocity, and/or acceleration amplitudes was investigated, based on Griffin’s [1] report that frequency is not as useful if it is not accompanied by displacement, velocity, and/or acceleration amplitudes. It was then verified in the studies if there was explicit information about these data, or information that allowed one to deduce them as shown in Table 1. In addition to these data, the exposure duration of each session and the total duration of application, the animal species studied, and the results of the studies were researched.

Table 1. Conversions between displacement, velocity, and acceleration for sinusoidal movement in frequency 𝐹. Adapted from Griffin [1]

RESULTS

Of the retrieved studies, 45 were research articles and 5 were literature reviews. Of the literature reviews, 3 investigated humans [42, 52, 57] and 2 several species [8, 40]. Of the research articles, 3 studies were carried out in rabbits [17, 41, 47], 17 in rats [10, 19-21, 27-29, 31, 34, 46, 50, 55, 56, 59, 60] and 25 were performed in humans [9, 15, 16, 18, 23, 24, 30, 32, 33, 35-39, 43-45, 48, 49, 53, 54, 58, 61].

Regarding the frequency analyzed, in 4 review articles [8, 40, 42, 57] multiple frequencies were applied, while in one of them [52] frequencies below 25 Hz were applied. In the research studies, only three did not report the frequencies [9, 29, 39], but two of them reported the manufacturer and model of the stimulator used [29,39] and one only the trade name [9]. The frequencies studied ranged from 4 [47] to 150 Hz [10]. The most used frequency range was between 30 and 35 Hz observed in 22 studies [9, 16-19, 24-27, 30, 33, 35, 39, 44, 49, 55, 56, 58-61], followed by 45 Hz used in 7 articles [20, 32, 34, 44, 46, 50, 59], one of them [44] employed both frequencies.

There were no displacement amplitudes, accelerations, or velocity values in the review articles. It was not possible to deduce them from Table 1 due to the lack of frequency knowledge. In the research papers, it was found that:

1. Displacement range: 25 papers [15-18, 22, 24, 26, 30, 31, 35-37, 43, 44, 47-51, 53, 55, 56, 58, 61] provided direct data; 12 papers [10, 19, 21, 23, 27, 28, 34, 39, 54, 59, 60] provided data that made sense through the conversions in Table 1 and in 8 papers [9,25,29,33,38,41,45,46] it was not possible to obtain the data.
2. Acceleration amplitude are reported directly in 22 papers [10, 16, 17, 19-24, 27, 28, 30, 34, 36, 39, 50, 51, 54, 55, 59-61] while 15 papers [15, 18, 26, 31, 32, 35, 37, 43, 44, 47-49, 53, 58] provided data that made their knowledge possible through the conversions in Table 1. As well as the displacement amplitude, the acceleration was also not possible to be obtained in 8 studies [7, 25, 29, 33, 38, 41, 45, 46].
3. Velocity amplitude was not reported in any work. However, only in 8 of them [9, 25, 29, 33, 38, 41, 45, 46] is not possible to obtain such information using Table 1. Only in 10 studies [16, 17, 22, 24, 30, 36, 50, 51, 54, 55, 61] reported explicit acceleration and displacement information.

The other 27 offer only one type of information. By applying the conversions in Table 1, it is possible to obtain them. Therefore, in 37 studies, there is information regarding vibration based on the parameters of frequency, acceleration, velocity, and displacement for reproducibility. Regarding the duration of dose application and the total duration of the study, the most diversified data vary from a single application [51] to 12 months applications [33, 49]. The variation is so wide that the media or median would not represent a realistic sample pattern. Only three studies [23, 41, 54] did not report the total duration of the vibration dose.

Regarding the effectiveness of vibration in the 5 review papers, only 1 of them [42] concluded that vibration was not beneficial to the bone. Nevertheless, this study reported improvement in the muscular part of individuals exposed to vibration. Of the research studies, 8 of them [32, 33, 37, 43, 46-48, 53] reported no improvement in bone condition, and the other 37 demonstrated improvements in bone tissue parameters.

DISCUSSION

Due to the data sought in the studies regarding the vibration employed, only 10 brought forth all the data necessary to reproduce the results under the same conditions. However, using the vibration data conversion table (Table 1), 37 of the 45 studies analyzed (82.2 %) proved reproducible under the same conditions. Three out of 8 studies without vibration data [9, 29, 39] report the brand of equipment that was used, making them reproducible under the same conditions; this results in 88 % of the studies with sufficient information on vibration to be able to replicate it.

According to Zepetnek et al. [8], the protocol of investigations on the effect of vibration on bone is flawed in the following points: vibration direction, vibration amplitude, duration of exposure, frequency of intervention, duration of the study, type of platform, health status, demographic study of participants and movements made during exposure to vibration, body posture.

According to the authors, perhaps due to the alert of 2009, only 12 % of the common data collected in this study failed to provide the necessary information. This is understandable, but not alarming from their perspective. Regarding exposure time, only 3 articles (6.6 %) reported it, which means an even lower rate. Apparently, after 2009, research protocols seem to be more meticulous. And the wide variety of data found in the exposure time and duration of exposure is due to the search for an optimal exposure time.

Most of studies used frequencies between 20 and 90 Hz. The most used frequencies are between 30 and 35 Hz. Perhaps that is due to the ease of finding stimulators in this vibrational range on the market. Frequencies between 4 and 150 HZ were found, a very broad spectrum and some studies were dedicated to studying the effects of frequency variations [10, 15, 17, 23, 26, 27, 29, 35, 37, 41, 44, 48, 49, 54, 55, 59]. That follows the same pattern of exposure time, where the literature seeks an optimal frequency for the vibration applied to improve bone tissue.

Regarding the results of the review papers three [40, 52, 55] describe the effectiveness of vibration in the improvement of bone condition. One of the studies [8] reported effectiveness levels of 95 %. However, because of the designs of the study, caution should be exercised about the bias that may occur. One of them [42] reports not having seen bone tissue improvements but reporting improvement in muscle tissue. Although several parameters were used for comparison, 82.2 % of the studies reported improvements in the skeleton. One of the studies [29] reports improvement in markers that demonstrate osteogenesis. Despite that, since the rat's bone marrow is sectioned and the musculature does not respond to central stimuli, it did not demonstrate improvement in bone. Two basic patterns were observed in the studies that did not report improvements in bone tissue whe the individual is submitted to WBV. In the first instance, there is a compromised muscle contraction due to injury to the nervous system [33], botulinum toxin [46], or immobilization [53].

The second is frequency. The only work that resulted in damage to bone tissue was with the application of WBV at 4 Hz [47] and another study without reporting effectiveness used a frequency of 20 Hz [43]. Another interesting observation [37] was the statistical equality between the group with physical activity and the group subjected to vibration. Even so, both groups demonstrated statistical differences from the control group, with the group exposed to vibration presenting fewer falls. In the other two studies that reported no alterations in bone tissue, frequencies of 45 Hz were used in one of them [32], and 40 to 60 Hz in another [48], where no characteristic was found that could justify the different response within the studies.

These data led us to create a hypothesis: vibration would have a more significant effect on bone tissue in individuals that maintain muscle contraction capacity. The hypothesis must, however, be scientifically tested if it has not already been done, and the work has not been found.

There are additional details about biomechanics in orthodontics you can find on our website.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the data obtained in the research studies, it appears that most studies on the effects of mechanical vibration on bone tissue employ a reproducible protocol. There is a stimulation of bone biology, regardless of species, in the sense of osteogenesis in individuals exposed to high frequency mechanical vibration. Further studies are needed for further improvement of research protocols and the influence of high frequency vibration on the body.

Acknowledgements

The authors have not disclosed any funding.

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Authors: Orlando Santiago Júnior, Rudolf Huebner, Maria Lucia Duarte

References

1. M. J. Griffin, Handbook of human vibration. London, England: Academic Press, 1996.
2. C. H. Lewis and M. J. Griffin, “A review of the effects of vibration on visual acuity and continuous manual control, part II: Continuous manual control,” Journal of Sound and Vibration, Vol. 56, No. 3, pp. 415–457, Feb. 1978.
3. T. El-Bialy, T. Shipley, and K. Farouk, “Effect of high-frequency vibration on orthodontic tooth movement and bone density,” journal of orthodontic science, Vol. 8, No. 1, p. 15, 2019.
4. M. Alikhani et al., “Vibration paradox in orthodontics: Anabolic and catabolic effects,” PLOS ONE, Vol. 13, No. 5, p. e0196540, May 2018.
5. “Guide to safety aspects of experiments in which people are exposed to mechanical vibration and shock,” British Standards Institution, 1989.
6. C. R. Douglas, Tratado De Fisiologia Aplicada a Ciências Da Saúde. (in Portuguese), São Paulo, Brazil: Robe Editorial, 2002.
7. M. L. Moss, “The functional matrix hypothesis revisited. 1. The role of mechanotransduction,” American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Vol. 112, No. 1, pp. 8–11, Jul. 1997.
8. J. O. Totosy de Zepetnek, L. M. Giangregorio, and B. C. Craven, “Whole-body vibration as potential intervention for people with low bone mineral density and osteoporosis: A review,” The Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, Vol. 46, No. 4, p. 529, 2009.
9. Harrison R., Ward K., Lee E., Razaghi H., Horne C., and Bishop Nj, “Acute bone response to whole body vibration in healthy pre-pubertal boys,” Journal of musculoskeletal and neuronal interactions, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 112–122, Jun. 2015.
10. Т. Ogawa et al., “Stimulation of titanium implant osseointegration through high-frequency vibration loading is enhanced when applied at high acceleration,” Calcified Tissue International, Vol. 95, pp. 467–475, 2014.
11. D. A. Bailey, H. A. Mckay, R. L. Mirwald, P. R. E. Crocker, and R. A. Faulkner, “A six-year longitudinal study of the relationship of physical activity to bone mineral accrual in growing children: the university of saskatchewan bone mineral accrual study,” Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, Vol. 14, No. 10, pp. 1672–1679, Oct. 1999.
12. M. Nilsson, C. Ohlsson, D. Mellstrom, and M. Lorentzon, “previous sport activity during childhood and adolescence is associated with increased bone size in young adult men,” Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, Vol. 24, pp. 125–33, 2009.
13. K. C. Parsons and M. J. Griffin, “Whole-body vibration perception thresholds,” Journal of Sound and Vibration, Vol. 121, No. 2, pp. 237–258, Mar. 1988.
14. Yao Li, Karyne N. Rabey, Daniel Schmitt, John N. Norton, and Randall P. Reynolds, “Characteristics of Vibration that Alter Cardiovascular Parameters in Mice,” Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science: JAALAS, Vol. 54, No. 4, p. 372, Jul. 2015.
15. D. L. Belavý et al., “Evidence for an additional effect of whole-body vibration above resistive exercise alone in preventing bone loss during prolonged bed rest,” Osteoporosis International, Vol. 22, No. 5, pp. 1581–1591, May 2011.
16. H. Wang et al., “Resistive vibration exercise retards bone loss in weight-bearing skeletons during 60 days bed rest,” Osteoporosis International, Vol. 23, No. 8, pp. 2169–2178, Aug. 2012.
17. W. Junbo, L. Sijia, C. Hongying, L. Lei, and W. Pu, “Effect of low-magnitude different-frequency whole-body vibration on subchondral trabecular bone microarchitecture, cartilage degradation, bone/cartilage turnover, and joint pain in rabbits with knee osteoarthritis,” BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, Vol. 18, No. 1, p. 260, Dec. 2017.
18. A. Prioreschi, M. A. Makda, M. Tikly, and J. A. Mcveigh, “In patients with established RA, positive effects of a randomised three month WBV therapy intervention on functional ability, bone mineral density and fatigue are sustained for up to six months,” PLOS ONE, Vol. 11, No. 4, p. e0153470, Apr. 2016.
19. R. Florencio-Silva et al., “Effects of soy isoflavones and mechanical vibration on rat bone tissue,” Climacteric, Vol. 16, pp. 709–717, 2013.
20. S. Judex, T. J. Koh, and L. Xie, “Modulation of bone sensitivity to low-intensity vibrations by acceleration magnitude, vibration duration, and number of bouts,” Osteoporosis International, Vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 1417–1428, Apr. 2015.
21. L. Demiray and E. Özçivici, “Bone marrow stem cells adapt to low-magnitude vibrations by altering their cytoskeleton during quiescence and osteogenesis,” Turkish Journal of Biology, Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 88–97, 2015.
22. Q. Zhao, Y. Lu, H. Yu, and X. Gan, “Low magnitude high frequency vibration promotes adipogenic differentiation of bone marrow stem cells via P38 MAPK signal,” PLoS ONE, Vol. 12, No. 3, p. 38, 2017.
23. L. Wang, H.-Y. Hsu, X. Li, and C. J. Xian, “Effects of frequency and acceleration amplitude on osteoblast mechanical vibration responses: a finite element study,” BioMed Research International, Vol. 2016, pp. 1–16, 2016.
24. А. Matute-Llorente, A. González-Agüero, A. Gómez-Cabello, J. Tous-Fajardo, G. Vicente-Rodríguez, and J. A. Casajús, “Effect of whole-body vibration training on bone mass in adolescents with and without Down syndrome: a randomized controlled trial,” Osteoporosis International, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 181–191, Jan. 2016.
25. G. R. S. Sasso et al., “Effects of early and late treatments of low-intensity, high-frequency mechanical vibration on bone parameters in rats,” Gynecol Endocrinol, Vol. 31, No. 12, pp. 980–986, 2015.
26. G. Armbrecht et al., “Resistive vibration exercise attenuates bone and muscle atrophy in 56 days of bed rest: biochemical markers of bone metabolism,” Osteoporosis International, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 597–607, Apr. 2010.
27. V. Gnyubkin, A. Guignandon, N. Laroche, A. Vanden-Bossche, L. Malaval, and L. Vico, “High-acceleration whole body vibration stimulates cortical bone accrual and increases bone mineral content in growing mice,” Journal of Biomechanics, Vol. 49, No. 9, pp. 1899–1908, Jun. 2016.
28. R. Zhang, H. Gong, D. Zhu, J. Gao, J. Fang, and Y. Fan, “Seven day insertion rest in whole body vibration improves multi-level bone quality in tail suspension rats,” PLoS ONE, Vol. 9, No. 3, p. e92312, Mar. 2014.
29. H. M. Bramlett et al., “Effects of low intensity vibration on bone and muscle in rats with spinal cord injury,” Osteoporosis International, Vol. 25, No. 9, pp. 2209–2219, Sep. 2014.
30. T. P. Lam, B. K. W. Ng, L. W. H. Cheung, K. M. Lee, L. Qin, and J. C. Y. Cheng, “Effect of whole body vibration (WBV) therapy on bone density and bone quality in osteopenic girls with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a randomized, controlled trial,” Osteoporosis International, Vol. 24, No. 5, pp. 1623–1636, May 2013.
31. A. Nowak, M. Pawlak, Martyna Brychcy, J. Celichowski, and P. Krutki, “Effects of brief whole-body vibration on bone metabolic and immunological indices in rats,” Studies in Physical Culture and Tourism, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 73–76, 2012.
32. A. Gómez-Cabelloa, A. González-Agüeroa, S. Moralesa, I. Ara, J. A. Casajúsa, and G. Vicente-Rodríguez, “Effects of a short-term whole body vibration intervention on bone mass and structure in elderly people,” Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, Vol. 17, pp. 160–164, 2014.
33. S. Dudley-Javoroski, M. A. Petrie, C. L. Mchenry, R. E. Amelon, P. K. Saha, and R. K. Shields, “Bone architecture adaptations after spinal cord injury: impact of long-term vibration of a constrained lower limb,” Osteoporosis International, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 1149–1160, Mar. 2016.
34. D. Jing et al., “Mechanical vibration mitigates the decrease of bone quantity and bone quality of leptin receptor-deficient Db/Db mice by promoting bone formation and inhibiting bone resorption,” Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, Vol. 31, No. 9, pp. 1713–1724, 2016.
35. S. K. Karakiriou, H. T. Douda, I. G. Smilios, K. A. Volaklis, and S. P. Tokmakidis, “Effects of vibration and exercise training on bone mineral density and muscle strength in post-menopausal women,” European Journal of Sport Science, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 81–88, Jan. 2012.
36. S. M. El-Shamy and M. S. E. Mohamed, “Effect of whole-body vibration training on bone mineral density in cerebral palsy children,” Indian Journal of Physiotherapy and Occupational Therapy, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 139–141, 2012.
37. S. Von Stengel, W. Kemmler, K. Engelke, and W. A. Kalender, “Effects of whole body vibration on bone mineral density and falls: results of the randomized controlled ELVIS study with postmenopausal women,” Osteoporosis International, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 317–325, Jan. 2011.
38. J. Edionwe et al., “Mineral content and density in thermally injured children,” Burns, Vol. 42, pp. 605–613, 2016.
39. M. Cardinale, J. Leiper, P. Farajian, and M. Heer, “Whole-body vibration can reduce calciuria induced by high protein intakes and may counteract bone resorption: A preliminary study,” Journal of Sports Sciences, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 111–119, Jan. 2007.
40. Melis Olçum Uzan, Öznur Baskan, Özge Karadaş, and Engin Özçivici, “Application of low intensity mechanical vibrations for bone tissue maintenance and regeneration,” Turkish Journal of Biology, Vol. 40, No. 2, pp. 300–307, Apr. 2016.
41. S. He et al., “Low-frequency vibration treatment of bone marrow stromal cells induces bone repair in vivo,” Iranian Journal of Basic Medical Sciences, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 23–28, Jan. 2017.
42. R. W. Lau, L.-R. Liao, F. Yu, T. Teo, R. C. Chung, and M. Y. Pang, “The effects of whole body vibration therapy on bone mineral density and leg muscle strength in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” Clinical Rehabilitation, Vol. 25, No. 11, pp. 975–988, Nov. 2011.
43. A. M. Liphardt, J. Schipilow, D. A. Hanley, and S. K. Boyd, “Bone quality in osteopenic
44. postmenopausal women is not improved after 12 months of whole-body vibration training,” Osteoporosis International, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 911–920, Mar. 2015.
45. M. M. Ibrahim and G. A. Abdullah, “Effect of whole body vibration versus treadmill training on bone mineral density in children with down syndrome,” Indian Journal of Physiotherapy and Occupational Therapy, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 97–101, 2015.
46. G. Ligouri, T. Shoepe, and H. Almstedt, “Whole body vibration training is osteogenic at the spine in college-age men and women,” Journal of Human Kinetics, Vol. 31, pp. 55–68, 2012.
47. S. L. Manske, C. A. Good, R. F. Zernicke, and S. K. Boyd, “High-frequency, low-magnitude vibration does not prevent bone loss resulting from muscle disuse in mice following botulinum toxin injection,” PLoS ONE, Vol. 7, No. 5, p. e36486, May 2012.
48. Q. Chang et al., “Effects of vibration in forced posture on biochemical bone metabolism indices, and morphometric and mechanical properties of the lumbar vertebra,” PLoS ONE, Vol. 8, No. 11, p. e78640, Nov. 2013.
49. C. Milanese, F. Piscitelli, C. Simoni, and C. Zancanaro, “Mild chronic whole body vibration does not affect bone mineral mass or density in young females,” Journal of Human Sport and Exercise, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 474–479, Jun. 2011.
50. S. Von Stengel, W. Kemmler, M. Bebenek, K. Engelke, and W. A. Kalender, “Effects of whole-body vibration training on different devices on bone mineral density,” Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, Vol. 43, No. 6, pp. 1071–1079, Jun. 2011.
51. Z. Li et al., “Whole-body vibration and resistance exercise prevent long-term hind limb unloading-induced bone loss: independent and interactive effects,” European Journal of Applied Physiology, Vol. 112, pp. 3743–3753, 2012.
52. J. L. Bowtell et al., “Short duration small sided football and to a lesser extent whole body vibration exercise induce acute changes in markers of bone turnover,” BioMed Research International, Vol. 2016, pp. 1–10, 2016.
53. A. Fratini, T. Bonci, and A. M. J. Bull, “Whole body vibration treatments in postmenopausal women can improve bone mineral density: results of a stimulus focused meta-analysis,” PLoS ONE, Vol. 11, No. 12, p. e0166774.
54. N. Baecker, P. Frings-Meuthen, M. Heer, J. Mester, and A.-M. Liphardt, “Effects of vibration training on bone metabolism: results from a short-term bed rest study,” European Journal of Applied Physiology, Vol. 112, No. 5, pp. 1741–1750, May 2012.
55. T. R. Coughlin and G. L. Niebur, “Fluid shear stress in trabecular bone marrow due to low-magnitude high-frequency vibration,” Journal of Biomechanics, Vol. 45, No. 13, pp. 2222–2229, Aug. 2012.
56. R. Uchida et al., “Vibration acceleration promotes bone formation in rodent models,” PLOS ONE, Vol. 12, No. 3, p. e0172614, Mar. 2017.
57. Y. Huanga, H. Luanb, L. Suna, J. Bid, Y. Wanga, and Y. Fan, “Local vibration enhanced the efficacy of passive exercise on mitigating bone loss in hindlimb unloading rats,” Acta Astronautica, Vol. 137, pp. 373–381, 2017.
58. D. Collado-Mateo et al., “Effects of whole-body vibration therapy in patients with fibromyalgia: a systematic literature review,” Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, Vol. 2015, pp. 1–11, 2015.
59. A. Prioreschi, T. Oosthuyse, I. Avidon, and J. Mcveigh, “Whole body vibration increases hip bone mineral density in road cyclists,” International Journal of Sports Medicine, Vol. 33, No. 8, pp. 593–599, Aug. 2012.
60. L. W. Sun, H. Q. Luan, Y. F. Huang, T. Wang, and Y. B. Fan, “Effects of local vibration on bone loss in tail-suspended rats,” International Journal of Sports Medicine, Vol. 35, pp. 615–624, 2014.
61. F. Qing et al., “Administration duration influences the effects of low-magnitude, high-frequency vibration on ovariectomized rat bone,” Journal of Orthopaedic Research, Vol. 34, pp. 1147–1157, 2016.
62. H. Corrie, K. Brooke-Wavell, N. J. Mansfield, A. Cowley, R. Morris, and T. Masud, “Effects of vertical and side-alternating vibration training on fall risk factors and bone turnover in older people at risk of falls,” Age and Ageing, Vol. 44, No. 1, pp. 115–122, Jan. 2015.
63. V. P. Lopes, M. L. M. Duarte, L. V. Donadon, F. S. B. Araújo, D. A. Vilhena, and R. Q. Guimarães, “Influence of whole-body vibration, media and artificial lighting on eye-movement during reading,” (in Portuguese), Revista Brasileira de Oftalmologia, (in press)