Skip to main content
. 2010 Feb;46(2):314–321. doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2009.08.054

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Relative values, analyzed by μCT and histomorphometry, of the left and right bones in the NOLOAD, STATIC and DYNAMIC + STATIC groups compared to the left bones in the NOLOAD group. L = left, R = right. (A) Cortical bone volume analyzed by μCT at the proximal (25% of the bone's length from its proximal end), proximal/middle (37%), middle (50%) and distal (75%) sites of the tibia. (B) Periosteal labels and inter-label bone area, analyzed by histomorphometry, normalized by total cortical bone area at the proximal, proximal/middle, middle and distal sites of the tibia. (C) Endosteal labels and inter-label bone area, analyzed by histomorphometry, normalized by total cortical bone area at the proximal, proximal/middle, middle and distal sites of the tibia. (D) Trabecular percent bone volume analyzed by μCT at two sites 0.01–0.25 mm (containing primary spongiosa) and 0.25–1.25 mm (secondary spongiosa) distal to the growth plate in the proximal tibia. (E) Cortical bone volume analyzed by μCT at the middle (50%) site of the fibula, femur, ulna and radius. Data are the mean ± SE (n = 6–7). ⁎p < 0.05 versus all other five values by one-way ANOVA followed by a post hoc Bonferroni or Dunnett T3 test.