Table 1.
Relationship between predicted strength and bone volume fraction for the three cavity-placement schemes per specimen.
| Canine vertebra (n=10) |
Human vertebra (n=16) |
Human femoral neck (n=14) |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sy = m (BV/TV) + b | Sy = m (BV/TV) + b | Sy = m (BV/TV) + b | ||||
| Cavity placement | m | b | m | b | m | b |
| None | 117.1a (36.5) | −13.0 (8.3) | 25.1a (6.8) | −0.97 (0.79) | 100.9a (15.9) | −9.1 (3.7) |
| Random | 107.8a (30.6) | −12.2 (6.5) | 23.0a (6.1) | −0.89 (0.67) | 92.6a (15.1) | −8.2 (3.3) |
| High-strain | 92.8a (34.9) | −11.2 (7.5) | 18.1a (5.9) | −0.77 (0.65) | 81.7a (15.4) | −8.6 (3.4) |
Data shows parameter estimate means (± 95% confidence interval) from linear regression. Strength has units of MPa (106 N/m2). Multiple comparisons performed using the Bonferroni adjustment. n denotes the number of bone specimens per group; each specimen was analyzed assuming three different types of cavity placement.
a
p<0.01 vs. both other cavity-placement schemes.