A quantitative histological comparison of ground human bone preparation techniques

Abstract

To assess bone histology, ground bone sections can be prepared mechanically (automated technique) or manually by grinding the bone by hand (manual method). Recently the manual grinding method proposed by Maat et al. (2001) has received increased interest compared to other grinding techniques commonly used to investigate histochemical staining to diagnose pathological changes and age-at-death. Although automated techniques are thought to be qualitatively equivalent to Maat et al.'s (2001) method, a quantitative comparison has not been done. The aim therefore was to quantitatively compare Maat et al.'s (2001) manual method to an automated grinding technique by measuring the maximum and minimum diameters, and calculating the area, of Haversian systems and Haversian canals from the anterior midshaft of five cadaveric tibiae. Statistical tests were used to assess the differences between the variables. Quantitatively there was no significant difference between the two techniques, illustrating that the quality of the sections produced by the manual method was equally suitable for qualitative and quantitative examination. Future researchers interested in doing quantitative research on ground sections are therefore not limited by a lack of access to specialized automated equipment because manual ground sections are sufficient for histological assessment.