4.6 Article

How Does Bone Quality Differ Between Healthy-weight and Overweight Adolescents and Young Adults?

期刊

CLINICAL ORTHOPAEDICS AND RELATED RESEARCH
卷 471, 期 4, 页码 1214-1225

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1007/s11999-012-2576-0

关键词

-

资金

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research [MOP-84575]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Overweight youth have greater bone mass than their healthy-weight peers but sustain more fractures. However, it is unclear whether and how excess body fat influences bone quality in youth. We determined whether overweight status correlated with three-dimensional aspects of bone quality influencing bone strength in adolescent and young adult females and males. We categorized males (n = 103; mean age, 17 years) and females (n = 85; mean age, 18 years) into healthy-weight and overweight groups. We measured lean mass (LM) and fat mass (FM) with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA). We used high-resolution peripheral quantitative CT to assess the distal radius (7% site) and distal tibia (8% site). Bone quality measures included total bone mineral density (Tt.BMD), total area (Tt.Ar), trabecular bone volume fraction (BV/TV), trabecular number (Tb.N), separation (Tb.Sp), and thickness (Tb.Th). We used multiple regression to compare bone quality between healthy-weight and overweight adolescents adjusting for age, ethnicity, limb length, LM, and FM. Overweight males had higher (10%-21%) Tt.BMD, BV/TV, and Tb.N and lower Tb.Sp at the tibia and lower Tt.Ar at the radius than healthy-weight males. No differences were observed between overweight and healthy-weight females. LM attenuated the differences in bone quality between groups in males while FM negatively predicted Tt.BMD, BV/TV, Tb.N, and Tb.Th. Our data suggest overweight males have enhanced bone quality compared with healthy-weight males; however, when group differences are interpreted in the context of the mechanostat theory, it appears bone quality of overweight adolescents adapts to LM and not to greater FM.

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

4.6
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