ABSTRACT
This study describes the effects of feeding growing rats with a diet containing inadequate and incomplete proteins on both the morphological and the biomechanical properties of the mandible. Female rats aged 30 d were fed freely with one of two diets, control (CD, 301 Cal/100g) and experimental (ED, 359 Cal/100g). CD was a standard laboratory diet, while ED was a synthetic diet containing cornflower supplemented with vitamins and minerals. Both diets had the same physical characteristics. Control (C) and experimental (E) animals were divided into 4 groups of 10 animals each. C40 and E40 rats were fed CD and ED, respectively, for 40 d; C105 were fed the CD for 105 d; and E105 were fed the ED for 40 d and then the CD for the remainder of the experimental period (65 d). Mandibular growth was estimated directly on excised and cleaned bones by taking measurements between anatomical points. Mechanical properties of the right hemimandible were estimated by using a 3-point bending test to estimate the structural properties of the bone. Geometric properties of both the entire bone and the cross-section were determined. Bone material properties were calculated from structural and geometric properties. The left hemimandibles were ashed and the ash weight obtained. Rats fed the ED failed to achieve normal body weight gain. Complete catch-up was observed at the end of nutritional rehabilitation. Mandibular weight and length were negatively affected by the ED, as were the cross-sectional area, the mineralized cortical area, and the cross-sectional moment of inertia. All of these parameters showed incomplete catch-up. The structural bone mechanical properties indicative of strength and stiffness were negatively affected. Intrinsic material properties, as assessed by the modulus of elasticity and maximal elastic stress, were within normal values. In summary, the experimental bone was weaker than the control and structurally incompetent. The bone considered was smaller than the control bone, showing a significant reduction in the cross-sectional area and the moment of inertia. However, material properties as well as the ash fraction and degree of mineralization were similar in E and C bones. Therefore, the E bone was weaker than the C bone because of its smaller bone mass, which appears to have been negatively influenced by the ED in relation to its effects on overall body mass.