. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2015 Oct 1.

Published in final edited form as: Exp Biol Med (Maywood). 2014 May 28;239(10):1380–1389. doi: 10.1177/1535370214532759

Table 1.

μCT analysis of tibial bone in PF, EtOH, PF/GEN and EtOH/GEN treated male mice.

	PF	EtOH	PF/GEN	EtOH/GEN
Tb. Bone parameters

BV/TV, %	6.52 (0.01)^a	4.93 (0.01)^b	9.09 (0.004)^c	9.09 (0.004)^c
Tb.Number, 1/mm	2.60 (0.21)^a	1.82 (0.18)^b	2.86 (0.11)^c	2.07 (0.20)^b
Tb.Spacing, mm	0.37 (0.03)^a	0.55 (0.06)^b	0.32 (0.01)^c	0.48 (0.05)^b
Tb.Thickness, mm	0.029(0.001)^a	0.029(0.001)^a	0.030(0.001)^c	0.030 (0.001)^b

Ct bone parameters

Cross-sectional Area mm²	0.150 (0.001)^a	0.140 (0.003)^b	0.145 (0.003)^a	0.135 (0.004)^b
Total Diameter, mm	0.101 (0.001)^a	0.093 (0.002)^b	0.098 (0.001)^a	0.091(0.002)^b
Cortical Thickness, mm	0.188 (0.002)^a	0.173 (0.003)^b	0.185 (0.001)^a	0.176 (0.002)^b
Medullary Area, mm²	0.110 (0.003)^a	0.123 (0.008)^b	0.101 (0.001)^a	0.110 (0.005)^b
Periosteal Perimeter, mm	0.976 (0.01)^a	0.925 (0.02)^a	0.976 (0.02)^a	0.936 (0.02)^a
Endocortical Perimeter, mm	0.617 (0.009)^a	0.644 (0.02)^a	0.575 (0.004)^a	0.601 (0.022)^a

N= 10 mice/group; Values are mean ± St.Err. Trabecular bone (Tb). Statistical differences between treatment groups were determined by two-way ANOVA followed by Student-Newman Keuls post-hoc analysis. Values with different letter subscripts are significant from each other (p<0.05).