ArticleBiomimetics (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Optimization of Fixations for Additively Manufactured Cranial Implants: Insights from Finite Element Analysis.
Article in Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Augmented Reality Integration in Skull Base Neurosurgery: A Systematic Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Pooled it
- Control of Corner Separation in Compressor Cascade Using Biomimetic Fish Scales Structure.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Use of Biomaterials in 3D Printing as a Solution to Microbial Infections in Arthroplasty and Osseous Reconstruction.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
With the emergence of additive manufacturing technology, patient-specific cranial implants using 3D printing have massively influenced the field. These implants offer improved surgical outcomes and aesthetic preservation. However, as additive manufacturing in cranial implants is still emerging, ongoing research is investigating their reliability and sustainability. The long-term biomechanical performance of these implants is critically influenced by factors such as implant material, anticipated loads, implant-skull interface geometry, and structural constraints, among others. The efficacy of cranial implants involves an intricate interplay of these factors, with fixation playing a pivotal role. This study addresses two critical concerns: determining the ideal number of fixation points for cranial implants and the optimal curvilinear distance between those points, thereby establishing a minimum threshold. Employing finite element analysis, the research incorporates variables such as implant shapes, sizes, materials, the number of fixation points, and their relative positions. The study reveals that the optimal number of fixation points ranges from four to five, accounting for defect size and shape. Moreover, the optimal curvilinear distance between two screws is approximately 40 mm for smaller implants and 60 mm for larger implants. Optimal fixation placement away from the center mitigates higher deflection due to overhangs. Notably, a symmetric screw orientation reduces deflection, enhancing implant stability. The findings offer crucial insights into optimizing fixation strategies for cranial implants, thereby aiding surgical decision-making guidelines.
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.