ArticleJournal of materials science. Materials in medicine2018
Characterization of an artificial skull cap for cranio-maxillofacial surgery training.
Article in Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine, 2018. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
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
10 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Cranial grafts are favored to reconstruct skeletal defects because of their reduced resorption and their histocompatibility. Training possibilities for novice surgeons include the "learning by doing" on the patient, specimens or simulators. Although the acceptance of simulators is growing, the major drawback is the lack of validated bone models. The aim of this study was to create and validate a realistic skull cap model and to show superiority compared to a commercially available skull model. Characteristic forces during machinery procedures were recorded and thickness parameters from the bony layers were obtained. The thickness values of the bone layers of the developed parietal bone were comparable to the human ones. Differences between drilling and sawing forces of human and artificial bones were not detected using statistical analysis. In contrast the parameters of the commercially available skull model were significantly different. However, as a result, a model-based simulator for tabula externa graft lift training, consisting of a brain, skull bone cap and covering soft tissues was created. This simulator enables the training of all procedural steps of a "split thickness graft lift". In conclusion, an artificial skull cap suitable for parietal graft lift training was manufactured and validated against human parietal bones.
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.