Skip to main content
. 2015 Apr 17;10(4):e0124862. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0124862

Table 2. Comparison of mean computed strains to reported mean experimental strains measured with confocal microscopy on compressed growth plate explants.

Study level Applied strain (%) Strain measure RZ strain (%) PZ strain (%) HZ strain (%) Epi- and meta-physeal bone left on explant Thickness of RZ + P/H zones (mm) RZ thickness (% of physeal height) Study
tissue -20 PC*- surface (50 μm depth) -14 -14 -20 Yes 0.67 31 Present computational model
PC*-interior -10 -22 -14
cell -20 Surface (300 μm depth) n/a -20 -23
Interior n/a -9 -7
tissue -5 PC** -9 -5 -9 Yes about 1 < 10 Villemure et al. 2007 [14]
tissue -10 Axial (long bone axis) -2 -9 -4 No 3.4 70 Amini et al. 2013 [45]
Transverse +1 +1 +2
cell -15 Minor diameter -8 -20 -18 No 3.2 70 Amini et al. 2010 [12]
Major diameter -11 -14 -18

RZ: reserve zone. PZ: proliferative (columnar zone). HZ: hypertrophic zone. PC: principal compressive *logarithmic (present study) or **Lagrangian strain (Villemure et al.) strain. Surface: strains within certain depths of sample surface. Interior: strains at central region of the sample. Axial strain: along the bone long axis. Cell strains were reported as minor and major cell diameter changes. Minor diameter: cells in the PZ have minor diameters in line with the axial direction.