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.