Table 2.

Association between the critical tissue strain (${\epsilon }_{\mathit{Tissue}}^{\mathit{nUTS}}$), max fibril (${\epsilon }_{\mathit{Tissue}}^{maxfibril}$) and max mineral (${\epsilon }_{\mathit{Tissue}}^{maxmineral}$) strain respectively.

	${\epsilon }_{\mathit{Tissue}}^{\mathit{nUTS}}$(%)	${\epsilon }_{\mathit{Tissue}}^{maxfibril}$(%)	${\epsilon }_{\mathit{Tissue}}^{maxmineral}$(%)	ANOVA p	${\epsilon }_{\mathit{Tissue}}^{\mathit{nUTS}}$ vs. ${\epsilon }_{\mathit{Tissue}}^{maxfibril}$ p	${\epsilon }_{\mathit{Tissue}}^{\mathit{nUTS}}$ vs. ${\epsilon }_{\mathit{Tissue}}^{maxmineral}$ p	${\epsilon }_{\mathit{Tissue}}^{maxfibril}$ vs. ${\epsilon }_{\mathit{Tissue}}^{maxmineral}$ p
Control	1.04 (0.30)	1.18 (0.30)	1.05 (0.28)	0.056	0.076	0.985	0.105
Fx-Untreated	0.72 (0.19)	0.78 (0.22)	0.73 (0.19)	0.084	0.097	0.948	0.168
Fx-BisTreated	0.48 (0.10)	0.55 (0.05)	0.48 (0.10)	0.050	0.075	0.994	0.088

In all 3 groups the critical tissue strain is more closely approximated by the tissue strain at max mineral strain (1%) than the tissue strain at max fibril strain (5–14%). Mean and (StDev) compared using paired ANOVA with Tukey’s post hoc.