Shijing Qiu1, Sudhaker D Rao2,3. 1. Bone and Mineral Research Laboratory, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI, 48202, USA. sqiu1@hfhs.org. 2. Bone and Mineral Research Laboratory, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI, 48202, USA. 3. Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Bone and Mineral Disorders, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There is controversy over the adverse effect of vitamin D deficiency on bone mineralization. The purpose of this study was to determine the ethnical differences in vitamin D and bone mineralization as well as the association between vitamin D deficiency and bone mineralization defects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We examined serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) levels and transiliac bone biopsies in 92 healthy black and white women, aged 20-73 years. The major bone mineralization indices include osteoid volume per bone volume (OV/BV), osteoid surfaces per bone surface (OS/BS), osteoid thickness (O.Th) and mineralization lag time (Mlt). RESULTS: 25(OH)D levels were significantly lower and prevalence of 25(OH)D deficiency was significantly higher in blacks than in whites. However, none of the mineralization indices showed significant difference between the two groups. In addition, there was no significant correlation between 25(OH)D levels and mineralization indices in both black and white cohorts. Only one case had O.Th marginally greater than 12.5 µm, which is the cutoff value for identifying bone mineralization defects. OV/BV and OS/BS, but not O.Th, were significantly positively correlated with activation frequency (Ac.f). CONCLUSIONS: Our study indicated: (1) vitamin D deficiency is common, but bone mineralization is not impaired in black women, and (2) there are no significant correlations between serum 25(OH)D levels and bone mineralization indices, suggesting that vitamin D deficiency may not be an independent factor contributing to bone mineralization defects and osteomalacia.
INTRODUCTION: There is controversy over the adverse effect of vitamin D deficiency on bone mineralization. The purpose of this study was to determine the ethnical differences in vitamin D and bone mineralization as well as the association between vitamin D deficiency and bone mineralization defects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We examined serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) levels and transiliac bone biopsies in 92 healthy black and white women, aged 20-73 years. The major bone mineralization indices include osteoid volume per bone volume (OV/BV), osteoid surfaces per bone surface (OS/BS), osteoid thickness (O.Th) and mineralization lag time (Mlt). RESULTS:25(OH)D levels were significantly lower and prevalence of 25(OH)D deficiency was significantly higher in blacks than in whites. However, none of the mineralization indices showed significant difference between the two groups. In addition, there was no significant correlation between 25(OH)D levels and mineralization indices in both black and white cohorts. Only one case had O.Th marginally greater than 12.5 µm, which is the cutoff value for identifying bone mineralization defects. OV/BV and OS/BS, but not O.Th, were significantly positively correlated with activation frequency (Ac.f). CONCLUSIONS: Our study indicated: (1) vitamin D deficiency is common, but bone mineralization is not impaired in black women, and (2) there are no significant correlations between serum 25(OH)D levels and bone mineralization indices, suggesting that vitamin D deficiency may not be an independent factor contributing to bone mineralization defects and osteomalacia.
Entities:
Keywords:
Bone mineralization; Ethnical difference; Histomorphometry; Osteoid; Vitamin D
Authors: D Y Lee; J H Jee; Y Y Cho; J Y Jang; T Y Yu; T H Kim; Y J Hong; W-J Hong; S-M Jin; K Y Hur; J H Kim; S W Kim; J H Chung; M K Lee; Y-K Min Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2017-02-10 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Bess Dawson-Hughes; Robert P Heaney; Michael F Holick; Paul Lips; Pierre J Meunier; Reinhold Vieth Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2005-03-18 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Michael F Holick; Neil C Binkley; Heike A Bischoff-Ferrari; Catherine M Gordon; David A Hanley; Robert P Heaney; M Hassan Murad; Connie M Weaver Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2011-06-06 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Craig F Munns; Nick Shaw; Mairead Kiely; Bonny L Specker; Tom D Thacher; Keiichi Ozono; Toshimi Michigami; Dov Tiosano; M Zulf Mughal; Outi Mäkitie; Lorna Ramos-Abad; Leanne Ward; Linda A DiMeglio; Navoda Atapattu; Hamilton Cassinelli; Christian Braegger; John M Pettifor; Anju Seth; Hafsatu Wasagu Idris; Vijayalakshmi Bhatia; Junfen Fu; Gail Goldberg; Lars Sävendahl; Rajesh Khadgawat; Pawel Pludowski; Jane Maddock; Elina Hyppönen; Abiola Oduwole; Emma Frew; Magda Aguiar; Ted Tulchinsky; Gary Butler; Wolfgang Högler Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2016-01-08 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Andrea Giustina; Robert A Adler; Neil Binkley; Roger Bouillon; Peter R Ebeling; Marise Lazaretti-Castro; Claudio Marcocci; Rene Rizzoli; Christopher T Sempos; John P Bilezikian Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2019-02-01 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Margaret Garrahan; Sarah Gehman; Sara E Rudolph; Adam S Tenforde; Kathryn E Ackerman; Kristin L Popp; Mary L Bouxsein; Shivani Sahni Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2022-08-18 Impact factor: 6.134