Table 2.
Effects of botanical extracts on bone resorption in ovariectomised female Sprague–Dawley rats
| Botanicals† (mg/kg body weight) | Histomorphometry (%) | Biomechanical (%) | DXA (%) | µCT (%) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sample | P | GS | I | %BA/TV | S | MF | BMD | vBMD | %BV/TV | Tb.N | Tb.Sp |
| AR-1 | 51 | 5·1 | 0 | ↑ 61·4* | ↑ 4·9 | ↓ 0·4 | ↑ 0·6 | ↑ 20·6 | ↑ 107·4* | ↑ 58·3* | ↓ 47·1* |
| AR-2 | 127 | 12·7 | 0 | ↑ 13·5 | ↑ 0·6 | ↑ 8·3* | ↑ 7·8* | ↑ 32·0* | ↑131·6* | ↑ 99·5* | ↓ 52·4* |
| AR-3 | 203 | 20·3 | 0 | ↑ 13·1 | ↑ 16·0* | ↑ 8·1* | ↑ 10·2* | ↑ 32·0* | ↑ 144·7* | ↑ 121·5* | ↓ 63·6* |
| AR-4 | 0 | 0 | 61 | ↓ 12·9 | ↑ 4·6 | ↓ 0·6 | ↑ 6·0* | ↑ 25·2* | ↑ 137·2* | ↑ 116·7* | ↓ 58·1* |
| AR-5 | 51 | 5·1 | 61 | ↑ 6·4 | ↑ 10·2 | ↑ 0·9 | ↑ 6·0* | ↑ 22·4 | ↑ 156·2 | ↑ 95·7 | ↓ 42·2* |
| AR-6 | 127 | 12·7 | 61 | ↑ 41·7 | ↑ 3·3 | ↑ 3·0 | ↑ 4·8* | ↑ 0·7 | ↑ 11·1 | ↑ 14·4 | ↓ 18·2 |
| ALD‡ | 0 | 0 | 0 | ↑ 214·1* | ↑ 0·2 | ↓ 0·4 | ↑ 35·3* | ↑ 123·5* | ↑ 632·2* | ↑ 313·4* | ↓ 88·0* |
DXA, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry; µCT, micro-computed tomography device; P, pomegranate; GS, grape seed; I, ipriflavone; %BA/TV, percentage bone area/total volume; S, stiffness; MF, maximum force; BMD, bone mineral density; vBMD, volumetric bone mineral density; %BV/TV, percentage bone volume/total volume; Tb.N, trabecular number; Tb.Sp, trabecular separation; AR, anti-resorptive sample; ↑, increase; ↓, decrease; ALD, alendronate.
* Statistical difference compared with vehicle control (P < 0·05).
† Rats were fed 15 g/d normal chow or normal chow containing botanical extracts for a period of 35 d.
‡ ALD-treated rats were given 0·5 mg/kg per d by oral administration.