ArticleAnatomical record (Hoboken, N.J. : 2007)2016
The Biomechanics of Zygomatic Arch Shape.
Article in Anatomical record (Hoboken, N.J. : 2007), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Craniofacial sutures changes associated with maxillary expansion using C-expander in adults: a retrospective study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Early life functional transitions impact craniofacial morphology in osteogenesis imperfecta.Anatomical record (Hoboken, N.J. : 2007) · 2025Article
- ZooKeys · 2025Article
- Does the model reflect the system? When two-dimensional biomechanics is not 'good enough'.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2023Article
- In vivo bone strain and finite element modeling of a rhesus macaque mandible during mastication.Zoology (Jena, Germany) · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Mammalian zygomatic arch shape is remarkably variable, ranging from nearly cylindrical to blade-like in cross section. Based on geometry, the arch can be hypothesized to be a sub-structural beam whose ability to resist deformation is related to cross sectional shape. We expect zygomatic arches with different cross sectional shapes to vary in the degree to which they resist local bending and torsion due to the contraction of the masseter muscle. A stiffer arch may lead to an increase in the relative proportion of applied muscle load being transmitted through the arch to other cranial regions, resulting in elevated cranial stress (and thus, strain). Here, we examine the mechanics of the zygomatic arch using a series of finite element modeling experiments in which the cross section of the arch of Pan troglodytes has been modified to conform to idealized shapes (cylindrical, elliptical, blade-like). We find that the shape of the zygomatic arch has local effects on stain that do not conform to beam theory. One exception is that possessing a blade-like arch leads to elevated strains at the postorbital zygomatic junction and just below the orbits. Furthermore, although modeling the arch as solid cortical bone did not have the effect of elevating strains in other parts of the face, as had been expected, it does have a small effect on stress associated with masseter contraction. These results are counterintuitive. Even though the arch has simple beam-like geometry, we fail to find a simple mechanical explanation for the diversity of arch shape. Anat Rec, 299:1734-1752, 2016. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.