Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2006 Apr 12.
Published in final edited form as: J Bone Miner Res. 2002 Sep;17(9):1613–1620. doi: 10.1359/jbmr.2002.17.9.1613

FIG. 4.

FIG. 4

Periosteal bone formation parameters at the tibia midshaft in response to low-magnitude, high-magnitude, and low-magnitude rest-inserted loading. Low magnitude loading did not significantly alter (A) MS, (B) MAR, or (C) BFR compared with the intact contralateral tibia. Both high-magnitude and rest-inserted loading significantly enhanced these parameters (*). In addition, both high-magnitude and rest-inserted loading induced significantly greater mineral apposition and bone formation compared with the low-magnitude loading (∧). No statistical differences were observed between high-magnitude and rest-inserted loading.