ASTM F1839: Standard Specification for Rigid Polyurethane Foam for Use as a Standard Material for Testing Orthopaedic Devices and Instruments
Solid foam: 5, 10, 12, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 50 PCF

Nagaraja S, Palepu V. Comparisons of Anterior Plate Screw Pullout Strength Between Polyurethane Foams and Thoracolumbar Cadaveric Vertebrae. J Biomech Eng. 2016;138(10). doi: 10.1115/1.4034427. PubMed PMID: 27536905.
Solid foam: 5, 8, 10, 15, 20 PCF
Laminated: 5PCF solid foam + 0.5mm short fiber filled epoxy
Open cell foam: 7.5, 15, 30 PCF

Calvert KL, Trumble KP, Webster TJ, Kirkpatrick LA. Characterization of commercial rigid polyurethane foams used as bone analogs for implant testing. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2010;21(5):1453-61. doi: 10.1007/s10856-010-4024-6. PubMed PMID: 20162325.
Solid foam: 12, 15, 20, 25, 40 PCF

Hsu JT, Huang HL, Chang CH, Tsai MT, Hung WC, Fuh LJ. Relationship of three-dimensional bone-to-implant contact to primary implant stability and peri-implant bone strain in immediate loading: microcomputed tomographic and in vitro analyses. The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants. 2013;28(2):367-74. doi: 10.11607/jomi.2407. PubMed PMID: 23527336.
10 pcf solid foam
10 pcf solid foam + 1mm short fiber filled epoxy
10 pcf solid foam + 2mm short fiber filled epoxy
10 PCF solid foam + 3mm short fiber filled epoxy
7.5 PCF cellular foam + 2mm short fiber filled epoxy
10 PCF cellular foam + 2mm short fiber filled epoxy
12.5 PCF cellular foam + 2mm short fiber filled epoxy
20 PCF cellular foam + 2mm short fiber filled epoxy

Patel PS, Shepherd DE, Hukins DW. Compressive properties of commercially available polyurethane foams as mechanical models for osteoporotic human cancellous bone. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2008;9:137. PubMed PMID: 18844988.
Solid foam: 10, 20 PCF
Open cell foam: 5.5 PCF

Szivek JA, Thomas M, Benjamin JB. Characterization of a synthetic foam as a model for human cancellous bone. J Appl Biomater. 1993;4(3):269-72. PubMed PMID: 10146310.
Solid and cellular foam: 10 – 15 PCF

Szivek JA, Thompson JD, Benjamin JB. Characterization of three formulations of a synthetic foam as models for a range of human cancellous bone types. J Appl Biomater. 1995;6(2):125-8. PubMed PMID: 7640439.
Solid foam 15 PCF

Thompson JD, Benjamin JB, Szivek JA. Pullout strengths of cannulated and noncannulated cancellous bone screws. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1997(341):241-9. PubMed PMID: 9269180.
Solid and cellular foam 10-20 PCF

Thompson MS, McCarthy ID, Lidgren L, Ryd L. Compressive and shear properties of commercially available polyurethane foams. J Biomech Eng. 2003;125(5):732-4. PubMed PMID: 14618933.
Cellular foam 7.5, 10, 12.5, 20 PCF

Chong AC, et al., Fracture toughness and fatigue crack propagation rate of short fiber reinforced epoxy composites for analogue cortical bone. J Biomech Eng 2007;129(4):487-93.

Menke C, Kluge M, Welke B, Lenarz T, Majdani O, S Rau T. Pull-Out Strength of Orthodontic Miniscrews in the Temporal Bone. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2024 Jan-Dec;53:
Absolute 4th Gen, 50 PCF Solid Foam

Chong, A.C., et al., Fatigue performance of composite analogue femur constructs under high activity loading. Ann Biomed Eng, 2007. 35(7): p. 1196-205.
3406

Heiner, A.D., Structural properties of fourth-generation composite femurs and tibias. J Biomech, 2008. 41(15): p. 3282-4.
3403, 3401

Gardner, M.P., et al., Mechanical evaluation of large-size fourth-generation composite femur and tibia models. Ann Biomed Eng, 2010. 38(3): p. 613-20.
3406, 3402

Zdero R, et al., The effect of cortex thickness on intact femur biomechanics: a comparison of finite element analysis with synthetic femurs. Proc Inst Mech Eng [H] J. Engineering in Medicine, 2009. 224: p. 831-840.
3403

Zdero R, S.S., M Mosli, EH Schemitsch, The effect of load application rate on the biomechanics of synthetic femurs. Proc Inst Mech Eng [H] J. Engineering in Medicine, 2009. 224: p. 599-605.
3403

Zdero, R., et al., Cortical screw purchase in synthetic and human femurs. J Biomech Eng, 2009. 131(9): p. 094503.
3406

Zdero R, O.M., Bougherara H,Schemitsch EH, Cancellous bone screw purchase: a comparison of synthetic femurs, human femurs, and finited element analysis. Proc. IMechE: J. Engineering in Medicine, 2008. Vol 222(Part H): p. 1175-1183.
3406, 3406-4

Nicayenzi, B, S Shah, E H Schemitsch, H Bougherara, and R Zdero. The biomechanical effect of changes in cancellous bone density on synthetic femur behaviour. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part H: Journal of Engineering in Medicine 225.11 (2011): 1050-1060.
3406, 3406-11, 3406-5, 3406-17, 3406-12 and 30 PCF

Gluek C, Zdero R, Quenneville CE. Evaluating the mechanical response of novel synthetic femurs for representing osteoporotic bone [published online ahead of print, 2020 Aug 28]. J Biomech. 2020;111:110018. doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2020.110018
3503

Lamb, Jonathan N et al. Comparison of axial-rotational postoperative periprosthetic fracture of the femur in composite osteoporotic femur versus human cadaveric specimens: A validation study. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part H, Journal of engineering in medicine vol. 236,7 (2022): 973-978. doi:10.1177/09544119221092842
3503

Heiner, A.D., Structural properties of fourth-generation composite femurs and tibias. J Biomech, 2008. 41(15): p. 3282-4.
3403, 3401

Gardner, M.P., et al., Mechanical evaluation of large-size fourth-generation composite femur and tibia models. Ann Biomed Eng, 2010. 38(3): p. 613-20.
3406, 3402

Dunlap, J.T., et al., Structural properties of a novel design of composite analogue humeri models. Ann Biomed Eng, 2008. 36(11): p. 1922-6.
3404

Aziz, MSR, et al. Biomechanical measurement of stopping and stripping torques during screw insertion in five types of human and artificial humeri. Proc Inst Mech Eng [H] J. Engineering in Medicine. 2014. 228 p. 446 – 455.
3404

Aziz MSR, et al. Biomechanical Measurements of Stiffness and Strength for Five Types of Whole Human and Artificial Humeri. Journal of Biomechanical Engineering, 2014, 136(5), 051006-1-10
3404

Aziz MSR, et al. Biomechanical Measurements of Cortical Screw Purchase in Five Types of Human and Artificial Humeri. Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials, 2014, 30, 159-167
3404

Elfar, John et al. Composite Bone Models in Orthopaedic Surgery Research and Education. J AAOS. 22.2 (2014): 111–120. PMC. Web. 4 Nov. 2016

Zdero R, Brzozowski P, Schemitsch E. Biomechanical properties of artificial bones made by Sawbones: A review. Medical Engineering and Physics 118 (2023) 104017.