Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 Jun 25.
Published in final edited form as: Eur Cell Mater. 2018 May 30;35:300–317. doi: 10.22203/eCM.v035a21

Fig. 5.

Fig. 5

Biomechanical evaluation of motion segments with and without hydrogel repair. (a,b) Representative force-displacement curves of motion segment samples over the three-day test from the Experimental and Sham groups. Comparison of biomechanical parameters between Experimental and Sham groups in the Intact, Injured and Implanted/No Implant conditions (c) Range of motion (d) Neutral zone stiffness (e) Neutral zone length (f) Compressive stiffness (g) Tensile stiffness (h) Slow ramp stiffness. aSignificantly different w.r.t intact, bSignificantly different w.r.t injured p < 0.05.