Skip to main content
. 2020 Jan 31;238:119828. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2020.119828

Fig. 5.

Fig. 5

Effect of Mg and VC on bone metabolism in vivo. (A) Representative TRAP staining images showed osteoclasts (red arrow). (B) Histomorphometry results showed osteoclast number (N.Oc/B.Pm), osteoblast surface (Ob. S/BS) and bone marrow fat area fraction in each group. (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01; a: p < 0.05, aa: p < 0.01 for Mg factor; bb: p < 0.01 for VC factor; two-way ANOVA; n = 6). (C) bone formation marker PINP and (D) bone resorption marker CTX (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, two-way ANOVA; n = 6). (E) Representative 3D images of micro-CT based trabecular bone of proximal tibia at 6 weeks after SAON induction. (B) Quantitative analysis of the bone mineral density (BMD), bone volume fraction (BV/TV), connective density (Conn. D.), trabecular number (Tb. N), trabecular thickness (Tb. Th) and the structure model index (SMI) in each group. (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01; a: p < 0.05 for Mg factor; bb: p < 0.01 for VC, two-way ANOVA; n = 8).