ArticleJournal of biomechanical engineering2024
Implant Strength Contributes to the Osseointegration Strength of Porous Metallic Materials.
Article in Journal of biomechanical engineering, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Modeling and simulation of a porous mobility total ankle arthroplasty implant: enhancing bone-in growth and reducing micromotion for improved fixation.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Article
- Porous Structures, Surface Modifications, and Smart Technologies for Total Ankle Arthroplasty: A Narrative Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Novel Subperiosteal Device Geometry and Investigation of Efficacy on Surrounding Bone Formation and Bone-Bonding Strength.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Creating the optimal environment for effective and long term osseointegration is a heavily researched and sought-after design criteria for orthopedic implants. A validated multimaterial finite element (FE) model was developed to replicate and understand the results of an experimental in vivo push-out osseointegration model. The FE model results closely predicted global force (at 0.5 mm) and stiffness for the 50-90% porous implants with an r2 of 0.97 and 0.98, respectively. In addition, the FE global force at 0.5 mm showed a correlation to the maximum experimental forces with an r2 of 0.90. The highest porosity implants (80-90%) showed lower stiffnesses and more equitable load sharing but also failed at lower a global force level than the low porosity implants (50-70%). The lower strength of the high porosity implants caused premature plastic deformation of the implant itself during loading as well as significant deformations in the ingrown and surrounding bone, resulting in lower overall osseointegration strength, consistent with experimental measurements. The lower porosity implants showed a balance of sufficient bony ingrowth to support osseointegration strength coupled with implant mechanical properties to circumvent significant implant plasticity and collapse under the loading conditions. Together, the experimental and finite element modeling results support an optimal porosity in the range of 60-70% for maximizing osseointegration with current structure and loading.
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.