Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Jun 1.
Published in final edited form as: Bone. 2012 Mar 9;50(6):1281–1287. doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2012.02.636

Figure 5.

Figure 5

Sites of microdamage were more likely to be near cavities than non-damaged bone surfaces (p < 0.01). The ratio of the proportion of sites with cavities at sites of microdamage (pmicrodamage) to the proportion of sites with cavities without microdamage (pnon-damaged) is shown for all nine specimens. The geometric mean and 95% confidence is shown indicating that microdamage sites are 2.39 times more likely to be near a resorption cavity than non-damaged sites.