4.4 Article

Age- and sex-related changes of mandibular condylar cartilage and subchondral bone: A histomorphometric and micro-CT study in rats

期刊

ARCHIVES OF ORAL BIOLOGY
卷 55, 期 2, 页码 155-163

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.archoralbio.2009.11.012

关键词

Mandibular condyle; Trabecular bone; Growth; Sex difference; Micro-CT

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [30772429, 30801315]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To quantify the age- and sex-related changes in the rat condylar cartilage and subchondral bone. Methods: SD rats were obtained at the ages of 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 months. For each sex, the temporomandibular joints tissue blocks from four rats were subjected to histological assessment of cartilage thickness and subchondral bone architecture; for the remaining three rats, the mandibular condyles were delivered for gross measurement and evaluation of the mineralization and architecture properties of the subchondral bone by means of micro-CT. Results: Rapid decrease of cartilage thickness but increase of subchondral bone density occurred respectively from 2 to 3 and 3 to 4 months old in female and 2 to 4 and 3 to 5 months old in male (P < 0.05), whereas rapid changes of subchondral bone architecture occurred from 3 to 4 months old in both sexes (P < 0.05). The significant enlargement of condyle size occur-red at 4 or 5 months old in female but at 5 or 6 months in male (P < 0.05). Conclusion: This study demonstrated that the rapid developmental changes of rat condylar cartilage and subchondral bone primarily occurred before 4 months of age, resulting in thinner cartilage but larger and thicker subchondral bone, and they were followed by rapid growth in condylar size. Sex differences were identified that the endochondral ossification of fibrocartilage and formation of subchondral bone were faster in female than in male rats, leading to the earlier enlargement of condyle in female than in male. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据