ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2021
Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 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, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Natural-Based Nanocomposite Ink Engineering for Seamless Multi-Material Integration in Extrusion-Based 3D Printing.Advanced healthcare materials · 2026Article
- Local mechanical stresses can explain the mechanoregulation of bone healing after mandibular reconstruction: an in silico study.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Article
- Impact of osteotomy angle on bone failure risk in a modified pull-through approach: a finite element analysis.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Article
- Biomechanical analysis of a magnesium plantar plate prototype system for the first tarsometatarsal joint fusion: a cadaveric study.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2024Article
- Titanium vs PEO Surface-Modified Magnesium Plate Fixation in a Mandible Bone Healing Model in Sheep.ACS biomaterials science & engineering · 2024Article
- Comparative biomechanics of all-on-4 and vertical implant placement in asymmetrical mandibular: a finite element study.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- Biomechanical comparison of all-on-4 and all-on-5 implant-supported prostheses with alteration of anterior-posterior spread: a three-dimensional finite element analysis.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023Article
- Biomechanical Comparison of WE43-Based Magnesium vs. Titanium Miniplates in a Mandible Fracture Model in Sheep.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Towards mechanobiologically optimized mandible reconstruction: CAD/CAM miniplates vs. reconstruction plates for fibula free flap fixation: A finite element study.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Article
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Titanium fixation devices are the gold standard for the treatment of mandibular fractures; however, they present serious limitations, such as non-degradability and generation of imaging artifacts. As an alternative, biodegradable magnesium alloys have lately drawn attention due to their biodegradability and biocompatibility. In addition, magnesium alloys offer a relatively high modulus of elasticity in comparison to biodegradable polymers, being a potential option to substitute titanium in highly loaded anatomical areas, such as the mandible. This study aimed to evaluate the biomechanical competence of magnesium alloy WE43 plates for mandibular fracture fixation in comparison to the clinical standard or even softer polymer solutions. A 3D finite element model of the human mandible was developed, and four different fracture scenarios were simulated, together with physiological post-operative loading and boundary conditions. In a systematic comparison, the material properties of titanium alloy Ti-6Al-4V, magnesium alloy WE43, and polylactic acid (PLA) were assigned to the fixation devices, and two different plate thicknesses were tested. No failure was predicted in the fixation devices for any of the tested materials. Moreover, the magnesium and titanium fixation devices induced a similar amount of strain within the healing regions. On the other hand, the PLA devices led to higher mechanical strains within the healing region. Plate thickness only slightly influenced the primary fixation stability. Therefore, magnesium alloy WE43 fixation devices seem to provide a suitable biomechanical environment to support mandibular fracture healing in the early stages of bone healing. Magnesium WE43 showed a biomechanical performance similar to clinically used titanium devices with the added advantages of biodegradability and radiopacity, and at the same time it showed a remarkably higher primary stability compared to PLA fixation devices, which appear to be too unstable, especially in the posterior and more loaded mandibular fracture cases.
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.