ArticlePloS one2021
Improving mandibular reconstruction by using topology optimization, patient specific design and additive manufacturing?-A biomechanical comparison against miniplates on human specimen.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Next-generation craniomaxillofacial implants for reconstructive surgery: balancing biomechanics, biocompatibility, and bioactivity.International journal of oral science · 2026Review
- A Novel 3D-Printed Titanium Prosthesis with Osseointegrated Dental Implants for Reconstruction of Segmental Mandibular Defects.Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Mandibular Implants: A Metamaterial-Based Approach to Reducing Stress Shielding.Advanced healthcare materials · 2025Article
- A Comparative Finite Element Analysis of Titanium, Autogenous Bone, and Polyetheretherketone (PEEK)-Based Solutions for Mandibular Reconstruction.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- A non-metallic PEEK topology optimization reconstruction implant for large mandibular continuity defects, validated using the MANDYBILATOR apparatus.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Autogenous, alloplastic, or hybrid for total mandibular reconstruction; is here an optimal path?Oral and maxillofacial surgery · 2024Review
- Titanium Alloy Implants with Lattice Structures for Mandibular Reconstruction.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- From bench to bedside - current clinical and translational challenges in fibula free flap reconstruction.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Review
- Additively manufactured metallic biomaterials.Bioactive materials · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this study, topology optimized, patient specific osteosynthesis plates (TOPOS-implants) are evaluated for the mandibular reconstruction using fibula segments. These shape optimized implants are compared to a standard treatment with miniplates (thickness: 1.0 mm, titanium grade 4) in biomechanical testing using human cadaveric specimen. Mandible and fibula of 21 body donors were used. Geometrical models were created based on automated segmentation of CT-scans of all specimens. All reconstructions, including cutting guides for osteotomy as well as TOPOS-implants, were planned using a custom-made software tool. The TOPOS-implants were produced by electron beam melting (thickness: 1.0 mm, titanium grade 5). The fibula-reconstructed mandibles were tested in static and dynamic testing in a multi-axial test system, which can adapt to the donor anatomy and apply side-specific loads. Static testing was used to confirm mechanical similarity between the reconstruction groups. Force-controlled dynamic testing was performed with a sinusoidal loading between 60 and 240 N (reconstructed side: 30% reduction to consider resected muscles) at 5 Hz for up to 5 · 105 cycles. There was a significant difference between the groups for dynamic testing: All TOPOS-implants stayed intact during all cycles, while miniplate failure occurred after 26.4% of the planned loading (1.32 · 105 ± 1.46 · 105 cycles). Bone fracture occurred in both groups (miniplates: n = 3, TOPOS-implants: n = 2). A correlation between bone failure and cortical bone thickness in mandible angle as well as the number of bicortical screws used was demonstrated. For both groups no screw failure was detected. In conclusion, the topology optimized, patient specific implants showed superior fatigue properties compared to miniplates in mandibular reconstruction. Additionally, the patient specific shape comes with intrinsic guiding properties to support the reconstruction process during surgery. This demonstrates that the combination of additive manufacturing and topology optimization can be beneficial for future maxillofacial surgery.
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.