Erratum to: Novel Use of a Dektak 150 Surface Profiler Unmasks Differences in Resorption Pit Profiles Between Control and Charcot Patient Osteoclasts

Erratum to: Calcif Tissue Int DOI 10.1007/s00223-013-9820-9

Unfortunately, all reported values representing the area of resorption under the surface were missing the 10³ multiplication factor in abstract, surface profilometry section and Fig. 4 in the original publication. The correct presentation is shown in this erratum.

The eighth sentence of the abstract should read “The area of resorption on the surface by image analysis was significantly greater in Charcot patients compared with controls (21.1 % [14.5–26.2] versus 40.8 % [35.4–46.0], median [25–75th percentile], p < 0.01), as was the area of resorption under the surface (2.7 × 10³ μm² [1.6 × 10³–3.9 × 10³] versus 8.3 × 10³ μm² [5.6 × 10³–10.6 × 10³], p < 0.01) after profilometry”.

The last sentence of the fourth paragraph in the Results (section surface profilometry) should read “The total area of the resorbed bone under the surface was significantly different between control subjects (2.7 x10³ μm² [1.6 × 10³–3.9 × 10³]) and Charcot patients (8.3 × 10³ μm² [5.6 × 10³–10.6 × 10³]), and there was a threefold increase in the area of resorption under the surface in M-CSF + RANKL-treated cultures between Charcot patients and controls (p < 0.01) (Fig. 4b)”.

The correct version of Fig. 4 is presented below.

Fig. 4

Erosion profiles in a control subject (solid line) and a Charcot patient (dashed line) in M-CSF + RANKL-treated cultures after profilometry (a). Scatter plot graph represents the area of resorption under the surface on bovine bone discs (μm²) in control subjects and Charcot patients in M-CSF + RANKL-treated cultures (b). Lines represent medians; **p < 0.01