ArticleBioMed research international2017
Shape Optimization of Bone-Bonding Subperiosteal Devices with Finite Element Analysis.
Article in BioMed research international, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Subperiosteal bone-bonding devices have been proposed for less invasive treatments in orthodontics. The device is osseointegrated onto a bone surface without fixation screws and is expected to rapidly attain a bone-bonding strength that successfully meets clinical performance. Hence, the device's optimum shape for rapid and strong bone bonding was examined in this study by finite element analyses. First, a stress analysis was performed for a circular rod device with an orthodontic force parallel to the bone surface, and the estimate of the bone-bonding strength based on the bone fracture criterion was verified with the results of an animal experiment. In total, four cross-sectional rod geometries were investigated: circular (Cr), elliptical (El), semicircular (Sc), and rectangular (Rc). By changing the height of the newly formed bone to mimic the progression of new bone formation, the estimation of the bone-bonding strength was repeated for each geometry. The rod with the Rc cross section exhibited the best performance, followed by those with the Sc, El, and Cr cross sections, from the aspects of the rapid acquisition of strength and the strength itself. Thus, the rectangular cross section is the best for rod-like subperiosteal devices for rapid bone bonding.
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.