V Sapthagirivasan1, M Anburajan. 1. Department of Biomedical Engineering, SRM University, Kattankulathur- 603203, Chennai, India. sapthagiri.ece@gmail.com
Abstract
UNLABELLED: This cross-sectional cohort emphasized the impact of heel bone mass in the South Indian population and its comparison with Nigerian ethnicity, residing in South India. Peak bone mass, however, evidenced a significant decrease of around 30% compared to that of Nigerian ethnicity. INTRODUCTION: In the South Indian population, the local folks do not seem to be well informed about the relative association of bone mass with osteoporosis. Hence, there is an acute necessity to assess the same with respect to the ethnic population, presumed to have possessed high bone mass, i.e., the Nigerian population. METHODS: The calcaneus of the right foot was measured with a quantitative ultrasound device (Sahara, Hologic Inc., USA) for a total population of 734, out of which 314 were Indian males, 348 Indian females, 41 Nigerian males, and 30 Nigerian females, whose ages ranged from 18 to 35 years. RESULTS: The peak bone mass in Indian males and females is 0.507 ± 0.1 and 0.479 ± 0.1 g cm(-2), respectively, and it is 0.714 ± 0.2 and 0.682 ± 0.2 g cm(-2) with regard to Nigerian male and female populations, respectively. Indian males and females who were within the age group of 26-30 and ≤ 20 years, respectively, represented high bone mass, and the same was the situation with respect to Nigerian counterparts who were within the age group of 21-25 years. Indian and Nigerian non-vegetarian population of both the genders demonstrated a high significance value of p < 0.000001, deciphered by means of unpaired t test. CONCLUSION: Peak bone strength was dominant in the Nigerian population compared to that of Indians. The Indian population is approximately lagging by 28-30% with respect to peak bone mass behind their Nigerian equivalents. Indian non-vegetarian male and female populations lagged by 6.15% and 6.16% behind the Indian vegetarian male and female populations, respectively.
UNLABELLED: This cross-sectional cohort emphasized the impact of heel bone mass in the South Indian population and its comparison with Nigerian ethnicity, residing in South India. Peak bone mass, however, evidenced a significant decrease of around 30% compared to that of Nigerian ethnicity. INTRODUCTION: In the South Indian population, the local folks do not seem to be well informed about the relative association of bone mass with osteoporosis. Hence, there is an acute necessity to assess the same with respect to the ethnic population, presumed to have possessed high bone mass, i.e., the Nigerian population. METHODS: The calcaneus of the right foot was measured with a quantitative ultrasound device (Sahara, Hologic Inc., USA) for a total population of 734, out of which 314 were Indian males, 348 Indian females, 41 Nigerian males, and 30 Nigerian females, whose ages ranged from 18 to 35 years. RESULTS: The peak bone mass in Indian males and females is 0.507 ± 0.1 and 0.479 ± 0.1 g cm(-2), respectively, and it is 0.714 ± 0.2 and 0.682 ± 0.2 g cm(-2) with regard to Nigerian male and female populations, respectively. Indian males and females who were within the age group of 26-30 and ≤ 20 years, respectively, represented high bone mass, and the same was the situation with respect to Nigerian counterparts who were within the age group of 21-25 years. Indian and Nigerian non-vegetarian population of both the genders demonstrated a high significance value of p < 0.000001, deciphered by means of unpaired t test. CONCLUSION: Peak bone strength was dominant in the Nigerian population compared to that of Indians. The Indian population is approximately lagging by 28-30% with respect to peak bone mass behind their Nigerian equivalents. Indian non-vegetarian male and female populations lagged by 6.15% and 6.16% behind the Indian vegetarian male and female populations, respectively.
Authors: Paul D Miller; Ethel S Siris; Elizabeth Barrett-Connor; Kenneth G Faulkner; Lois E Wehren; Thomas A Abbott; Ya-Ting Chen; Marc L Berger; Arthur C Santora; Louis M Sherwood Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: F Hartl; A Tyndall; M Kraenzlin; C Bachmeier; C Gückel; U Senn; D Hans; R Theiler Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Y Abe; N Takamura; Z Ye; M Tomita; M Osaki; Y Kusano; T Nakamura; K Aoyagi; S Honda Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2010-06-29 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: J Wehbe; C Cortbaoui; R M Chidiac; A Nehme; R Melki; F Bedran; P Atallah; C Cooper; P Hadji; G Maalouf Journal: J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 2.041
Authors: Qingju Wang; Patrick H F Nicholson; Jussi Timonen; Markku Alen; Petro Moilanen; Harri Suominen; Sulin Cheng Journal: J Clin Densitom Date: 2007-12-26 Impact factor: 2.617
Authors: D J VanderJagt; L A Damiani; T M Goodman; I O A Ujah; M O Obadofin; G E Imade; D R Shatima; R H Glew Journal: Bone Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 4.398
Authors: Claus C Glüer; Richard Eastell; David M Reid; Dieter Felsenberg; Christian Roux; Reinhard Barkmann; Wolfram Timm; Tilo Blenk; Gabi Armbrecht; Alison Stewart; Jackie Clowes; Friederike E Thomasius; Sami Kolta Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2004-03-01 Impact factor: 6.741