ArticleMedicine2019
Microhardness distribution of the tibial diaphysis and test site selection for reference point indentation technique.
Article in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Management and analysis of complications associated with all-inside technique anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A propensity score-matched study.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Article
- Ultra-Short Laser Surface Properties Optimization of Biocompatibility Characteristics of 3D Poly-ε-Caprolactone and Hydroxyapatite Composite Scaffolds.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Hardness, an Important Indicator of Bone Quality, and the Role of Collagen in Bone Hardness.Journal of functional biomaterials · 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
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Indentation hardness test is a good in vitro method of bone quality assessment. The purpose of this study is to explore the distribution characteristics of bone tissue microhardness in tibial diaphysis and provide theoretical support for the test site selection of the reference point indentation technique.Three fresh right tibias were obtained from 3 cadaver donors. The tibial diaphysis was evenly divided into 6 sections. Bone specimens with a thickness of 3 mm were cut from each part. After appropriate management, micro-indentation tests were performed in various regions of the specimens to acquire the microhardness values of the tibial diaphysis. Statistical analysis was performed by randomized block design variance analysis to study the distribution characteristics of bone microhardness.72 regions were selected for 360 effective indentations. We found that the bone microhardness is inhomogeneous in tibia diaphysis. Mean hardness value of the anterior, medial, posterior, lateral region of tibia diaphysis was 45.58 ± 4.39 Vickers hardness (HV), 52.33 ± 3.93 HV, 54.00 ± 4.21 HV, 52.89 ± 4.44 HV, respectively. The anterior cortex exhibits lower microhardness value than the other regions (P < .001). Within the same region, microhardness varies significantly with positions in the tibial diaphysis. The variations in indentation hardness are bound to have a significant impact on the comparability of different reference point indentation (RPI) studies.The results of this study indicated the regional microhardness difference in the human tibia diaphysis. The microhardness of different planes in the same region is also inconsistent. Inhomogeneous distribution of indentation microhardness would have considerable influence in the test site selection of RPI technique. The data collected in our study would contribute to the design of highly precise 3D printing implants and bionic bones with gradient elastic modulus.
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.