001 and p = 0.046 respectively) but the femur length exhibited
no difference (p > 0.05). In the oim group, no significant differences were found for the three parameters (p > 0.05 for all). Vibration treatment had a significant effect on the cortical morphology parameters (CSA, CtTh, Imax, Imin) in the femur and tibia of both wild type and oim animals when all the position within the tibia diaphysis were considered (percentage of total length (%TL)). In the wild type group, vibration treatment increased the cross section area (p = 0.026) and the mean cortical thickness (p < 0.001) in the tibia and increased CSA (p = 0.016); Imin (p = 0.014) and CtTh (p = 0.001) in the femur. In the oim Epigenetics inhibitor mice group, buy PFT�� all cortical parameters showed significant increases between vibrated and sham mice for the femur (CSA: p < 0.001,
Imin: p = 0.008, Imax: p = 0.012, CtTh: p < 0.001) and for the tibia (CSA: p < 0.001, Imin: p = 0.012; Imax: p = 0.019, CtTh: p = 0.001). In the Fig. 3, the differences observed for CSA and CtTh between the vibrated and sham mice are displayed for each of the positions along the tibia (Figs. 3a and b) and femur (Figs. 3c and d). In the femur of the oim vibrated mice, mean CtTh exhibited a significant increase for the central portion of the diaphysis (30-70%TL) while the wild mice exhibited a significant increase of CSA at 60%TL (p = 0.045). In the tibia, oim vibrated mice exhibited a significant increase of CtTh and CSA at the proximal end of the diaphysis (50-80%TL) while wild type vibrated mice Clomifene show
a significant increase of the mean cortical thickness at various positions (30, 50 and 60% TL). In the proximal tibial trabecular bone, a significant difference was observed between vibrated and sham groups. Bone surface and bone volume fraction were significantly increased in the vibrated group (p = 0.03 and p = 0.017 respectively) but not the trabecular thickness and spacing (p > 0.05). When genotype group were analysed separately, the wild type group exhibited no significant difference between vibrated and sham mice for all trabecular parameters (p > 0.05) (Figs. 4a and b). However, the oim vibrated mice exhibited a significant increase of the tibia bone volume fraction (p = 0.019) ( Fig. 4b). In the femur distal metaphysis, no significant differences between vibrated and sham mice were found for the trabecular bone morphology parameters in either wild type or oim groups (BS, BVTV, TbTh or TbSp, p > 0.05 in all condition, Figs. 4c and d). In the wild type group, the vibration treatment had a significant impact on the femur bending stiffness and yield load (p = 0.034 and p = 0.035 respectively) but the other parameters (ultimate load, total work to fracture, ultimate stress, Young’s modulus and yield stress) were not significantly different.