ArticleInternational journal of legal medicine2019
A biomechanical comparison between human calvarial bone and a skull simulant considering the role of attached periosteum and dura mater.
Article in International journal of legal medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Experimental determination of the stabbing intensity in an intracranial stabbing death.International journal of legal medicine · 2026Article
- Crosado embalming related alterations in the morpho-mechanics of collagen rich tissues.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Uniaxial tensile material properties of adult Chinese dura mater: investigating the influence of age, sex, and anatomical site.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
- A Preliminary Step Towards a Physical Surrogate of the Human Calvarium to Model Fracture.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2023Article
- Additive Manufacturing and Mechanical Characterization of PLA-Based Skull Surrogates.Polymers · 2022Article
- Biomechanical Evaluation of Patient-Specific Polymethylmethacrylate Cranial Implants for Virtual Surgical Planning: An In-Vitro Study.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- The dynamic impact behavior of the human neurocranium.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Topographical mapping of the mechanical characteristics of the human neurocranium considering the role of individual layers.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- What is Considered a Variation of Biomechanical Parameters in Tensile Tests of Collagen-Rich Human Soft Tissues? - Critical Considerations Using the Human Cranial Dura Mater as a Representative Morpho-Mechanic Model.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeCurrent forensic analysis of blunt force trauma relies on the use of cadaveric or animal tissues, posing ethical and reproducibility concerns. Artificial substitutes may help overcome such issues. However, existing substitutes exhibit poor anatomic and mechanical biofidelity, especially in the choice of skull simulant material. Progress has been made in identifying materials that have similar mechanical properties to the human skull bone, with the potential to behave similarly in mechanical loading.
aimsTo compare the biomechanical properties of the human calvarial bone with an epoxy resin-based simulant material. Data collected was also used to analyse the effect of periosteal attachment on the mechanical properties of skull bone compared with that of the counterpart samples.
methodsFifty-six human skull bone specimens were prepared from two cadaveric heads. Half of these specimens were removed of periosteum and dura mater as the PR (periosteum removed) group, whereas periosteum was left attached in the PA (periosteum attached) group. Duplicates of the bone specimens were fabricated out of an epoxy resin and paired in corresponding PR and PA groups. The specimens were loaded under three-point bending tests until fracture with image-based deformation detection.
resultsComparison of the epoxy resin and skull specimens yielded similarity for both the PR and PA groups, being closer to the PA group (bending modulus resin PR 2665 MPa vs. skull PR 1979 MPa, resin PA 3165 MPa vs. skull PA 3330 MPa; maximum force resin PR 574 N vs. skull PR 728 N, resin PA 580 N vs. skull PA 1034 N; strain at maximum force resin PR 2.7% vs. skull PR 5.1%, resin PA 2.3% vs. skull PA 3.5%, deflection at maximum force resin PR 0.5 mm vs. skull PR 0.8 mm, resin PA 0.5 mm vs. skull PA 1.0 mm). Bending strength was significantly lower in the resin groups (resin PR 43 MPa vs. skull PR 55 MPa, resin PA 44 MPa vs. skull PA 75 MPa). Moreover, the correlations of the mechanical data exhibited closer accordance of the PR group with the epoxy resin compared with the PA group with the epoxy resin.
conclusionsThe load-deformation properties of the epoxy resin samples assessed in this study fell within a closer range to the skull specimens with PR than with PA. Moreover, the values obtained for the resin fall within the reference range for skull tissues in the literature suggesting that the proposed epoxy resin may provide a usable artificial substitute for PA but does not totally represent the human skull in its complex anatomical structure.
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.