4.4 Article

Combined effects of diets with reduced calcium and phosphate and increased fluoride intake on vertebral bone strength and histology in rats

期刊

CALCIFIED TISSUE INTERNATIONAL
卷 69, 期 1, 页码 51-57

出版社

SPRINGER-VERLAG
DOI: 10.1007/s002230010033

关键词

bone density; osteoporosis; fluoride; fracture

资金

  1. NIDCR NIH HHS [R01-DE11291] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ingested fluoride is incorporated into bone apatite and can affect the structural integrity of bone. Fluoride absorption in the gut and incorporation into bone is affected by the presence of other ions, including calcium. We hypothesized that a low calcium phosphate diet combined with hi-h fluoride intake would have independent detrimental effects on vertebral bone strength. We measured the vertebral biomechanical properties and bone histology for rats given controlled diets with varied fluoride and calcium phosphate intakes for either 16 or 48 weeks. Diets were designed to produce mild calcium deficiency while keeping Ca:P ratio constant. Hence calcium deficiency was accompanied by a proportional phosphate deficiency. Calcium phosphate deficiency (25% of normal) significantly diminished vertebral strength only in younger rats. As the rats Crew older, the effects of calcium phosphate deficiency were mitigated. Calcium phosphate deficiency reduced vertebral strength in young rats primarily by reducing the trabecular bone volume. The highest fluoride intake (50 mg/L) significantly diminished vertebral strength, but there was no effect of lower fluoride intakes on bone strength. In contrast to calcium phosphate deficiency, high fluoride intake had no effect on trabecular bone volume but instead increased the amount of unmineralized osteoid, particularly in older rats. This impairment of mineralization by fluoride appeared to be the primary cause of the diminished vertebral strength. The detrimental effects of fluoride on vertebral bone strength were not amplified by calcium phosphate deficiency.

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