Skip to main content

Table 2 Effects of SACD, RCD, HCD, and SATD on the percentage of trabecular bone volume (TBV%), the percentage of trabecular bone resorption surface (TRS%), the percentage of trabecular bone formation surface (TFS%), 14Hbone mineral apposition rate (MAR), the membrane bone mineral apposition rate (mAR), and the osteoid average width (OSW) of tibia from rats

From: Semen astragali complanati- and rhizoma cibotii-enhanced bone formation in osteoporosis rats

Group n TBV% TRS% TFS% MAR(μm/d) mAR(μm/d) OSW(μm)
NC 12 28.08 ± 7.26 3.56 ± 1.47 8.23 ± 2.69 1.30 ± 0.18 2.40 ± 0.54 5.65 ± 1.34
Sham 12 27.18 ± 8.78 3.40 ± 1.54 7.40 ± 2.41 1.38 ± 0.16 2.28 ± 0.47 6.20 ± 1.29
OVX 12 8.945 ± 3.04b 9.31 ± 2.22b 14.54 ± 3.31b 1.86 ± 0.23b 3.03 ± 0.60b 7.77 ± 1.64a
DES 12 23.61 ± 4.71d 3.28 ± 1.31d 7.72 ± 2.66d 1.32 ± 0.22d 2.15 ± 0.70d 6.37 ± 1.42c
SACD 12 21.15 ± 4.97d 4.71 ± 1.57d 9.70 ± 2.29a, d 1.55 ± 0.26d 2.61 ± 0.31c 6.88 ± 1.56
RCD 12 12.10 ± 4.15b, c 7.11 ± 1.58b, c 14.93 ± 3.50b 1.92 ± 0.32b 3.09 ± 0.66b 7.13 ± 1.82
HCD 11 8.86 ± 2.64b 10.31 ± 2.61b 12.47 ± 3.92b 1.78 ± 0.17b 3.05 ± 0.76b 7.53 ± 1.86
SATD 11 10.84 ± 3.28b 10.06 ± 2.37b 12.41 ± 2.91b 1.82 ± 0.29b 2.96 ± 0.56b 6.28 ± 1.82
  1. aCompare with sham control group: P < 0.05.
  2. bCompare with sham control group: P < 0.01.
  3. cCompare with OVX group: P < 0.05.
  4. dCompare with OVX group: P < 0.01.