Estudio comparativo entre la masa osea evaluada por protocolos kineantropometricos v/s densidad osea medida por densitometria fotonica dual: Comparative study among kinanthropometric bone mass v/s dual fotonic bone density

• Atilio Almagià ^[2] ; Alvaro Gurovich ^[3] ; Alfonso Aroca ^[2] ; Daniza Ivanovic ^[1] ; Octavio Binvignat ^[4] ; Triana Toro ^[2] ; Enrique Cabrera ^[2]
  1. [1] Universidad de Chile

     Universidad de Chile

     Santiago, Chile

     
  2. [2] Universidad Católica de Valparaíso
  3. [3] Laboratorio de Ciencias del Deporte Clínica Reñaca
  4. [4] Universidad de Alfenas Unifenas

  Mostrar afiliaciones +
• Localización: Revista Chilena de Anatomía, ISSN 0716-9868, Vol. 17, Nº. 2, 1999, págs. 189-196
• Idioma: español
• Enlaces
  • Texto completo
• Resumen

  • Bone mass (BM) determination according to kineantropometric methods is usually made on each model of a new corporal fractionation. The cadaverous validation of these methods is scarce, except from the model ofKERR (1988) and the cadaverous study of Brussels, CLARYS et al. (1984), therefore, to attain a validation according to modern methodology and up to date could contribute important background in the study of the osteo-calcic metabolism. Nowadays, the evaluation of the bone mineral density (BMD) and the bone mineral content (BMC) by means of the fotonic dual absorciometry, widely known as osseous densitometry (OD) are recognised; consequently, the validation of the antropometric formulae of MO v/s DO could contribute reliable data of the osseous condition of the body. The subjects are 19 volleyball players, 10 men and 9 women, from university teams, whom were first kineantropometrically evaluated-according to the rules of the International Society for Advances in Kineatropometry (ISAK)- and, immediately after, underwent a full-length DO in a Fotonic Dual Densytometer (NORLAND XR 26, Mark II, 1994). We set up the correlations between the BMC and the BMD v/s the following antropometric estimations of MO: D. Kerr, Von Dobeln and Makiegka modified byA. Martin (1984). The results show correlations statistically significant among the different models v/s DO (p<0.05); however, the determination coefficient (r2) do not reach 50%. These results suggest that when there is a relation statistically significant, the MO antropometric models for the estimation of the MO could not estimate BMC nor BMD, this is because the concept of the osseous density is not related with the osseous weight in a 100%, since this one, apart from containing minerals, contains water and organic matter