ArticlePolymers2023
Finite Element Analysis of Patient-Specific 3D-Printed Cranial Implant Manufactured with PMMA and PEEK: A Mechanical Comparative Study.
Article in Polymers, 2023. 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, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sonolucent Cranioplasties in Young Children: Technical Nuances and Challenges.Neurosurgery practice · 2026Article
- Evaluation of a Novel Flexible Cage System for C5-C6 Fixation: A Finite Element Study Against Conventional ACDF Implants.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Mechanical Behavior of PEEK and PMMA Graphene and Ti6Al4V Implant-Supported Frameworks: In Silico Study.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Review
- Biological and Synthetic Materials in Mandibular Reconstruction : Materials for Mandibular Reconstruction: Biological vs Synthetic.Galen medical journal · 2024Review
- Advanced FFF of PEEK: Infill Strategies and Material Characteristics for Rapid Tooling.Polymers · 2023Article
- Optimization of Fixations for Additively Manufactured Cranial Implants: Insights from Finite Element Analysis.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
This article reports on a patient who required a cranial protection system. Using additive manufacturing techniques and surgical planning with the help of bio-models, a patient-specific bone implant solution was proposed that allows aesthetic restoration of the affected area and provides an adequate level of protection. In addition, through a comparative analysis with finite elements, the mechanical response to external actions of the medical device, printed with two materials: polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) and polyether-ether-ketone (PEEK), is simulated. The tested materials have recognized biocompatibility properties, but their costs on the market differ significantly. The results obtained demonstrate the similarities in the responses of both materials. It offers the possibility that low-income people can access these devices, guaranteeing adequate biomechanical safety, considering that PMMA is a much cheaper material than PEEK.
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.