ArticleHeliyon2022
Surgical planning and finite element analysis for the neurocraneal protection in cranioplasty with PMMA: A case study.
Article in Heliyon, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrating finite element analysis in total hip arthroplasty for childhood hip disorders: Enhancing precision and outcomes.World journal of orthopedics · 2025Article
- A Computational Model Reveals How Varying Muscle Activation in the Lateral Pharyngeal Wall and Soft Palate Differentiates Velopharyngeal Closure Patterns.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2024Article
- Cranial reconstruction utilizing polymeric implants in two different designs: finite element investigation.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2024Article
- Article
- Oculopalpebral prosthesis prototype design using the additive manufacturing technique: A case study.JPRAS open · 2024Article
- Finite Element Analysis of Patient-Specific 3D-Printed Cranial Implant Manufactured with PMMA and PEEK: A Mechanical Comparative Study.Polymers · 2023Article
- Polyether-Ether-Ketone (PEEK) and Its 3D-Printed Quantitate Assessment in Cranial Reconstruction.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2023Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
New developments in terms of additive manufacturing, computational tools and mathematical simulation techniques have favored the development of successful methodologies for the restoration or restitution of bone structures in the human body. Likewise, achievements in Materials Science have allowed the development of biocompatible composites capable of achieving mechanical characteristics and biological similarities comparable to those of natural bone. Without considering the advantages and disadvantages of some biomaterials with respect to others, this research aims to evaluate the surgical planning, the design process, the impact resistance and the critical deflection of a customized cranial implant manufactured from polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA). With the support of finite element methods (FEM), the level of neurocranial protection offered by the implant is assessed.
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.