Table 2 Association between the critical tissue strain (\(\varepsilon_{Tissue}^{nUTS}\)), max fibril (\(\varepsilon_{Tissue}^{\max \;fibril}\)) and max mineral (\(\varepsilon_{Tissue}^{\max \;mineral}\)) strain respectively.

From: Nanoscale mechanisms in age-related hip-fractures

 

\(\varepsilon_{Tissue}^{nUTS}\)(%)

\(\varepsilon_{Tissue}^{\max \;fibril}\)(%)

\(\varepsilon_{Tissue}^{\max \;mineral}\)(%)

ANOVA

p

\(\varepsilon_{Tissue}^{nUTS}\) vs. \(\varepsilon_{Tissue}^{\max \;fibril}\)

p

\(\varepsilon_{Tissue}^{nUTS}\) vs. \(\varepsilon_{Tissue}^{\max \;mineral}\)

p

\(\varepsilon_{Tissue}^{\max \;fibril}\) vs. \(\varepsilon_{Tissue}^{\max \;mineral}\)

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

  1. 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.
Back to article page