ArticleBMC research notes2024
Thermographic analysis of perforations in polyurethane blocks performed with experimental conical drill bit in comparison to conventional orthopedic drill bit: a preliminary study.
Article in BMC research notes, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
objectiveConical orthopedic drill bits may have the potential to improve the stabilization of orthopedic screws. During perforations, heat energy is released, and elevated temperatures could be related to thermal osteonecrosis. This study was designed to evaluate the thermal behavior of an experimental conical drill bit, when compared to the conventional cylindrical drill, using polyurethane blocks perforations.
resultsThe sample was divided into two groups, according to the method of drilling, including 25 polyurethane blocks in each: In Group 1, perforations were performed with a conventional orthopedic cylindrical drill; while in Group 2, an experimental conical drill was used. No statistically significant difference was observed in relation to the maximum temperature (MT) during the entire drilling in the groups, however the perforation time (PT) was slightly longer in Group 2. Each drill bit perforated five times and number of perforations was not correlated with a temperature increase, when evaluated universally or isolated by groups. The PT had no correlation with an increase in temperature when evaluating the perforations universally (n = 50) and in Group 1 alone; however, Group 2 showed an inversely proportional correlation for these variables, indicating that, for the conical drill bit, drillings with longer PT had lower MT.
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.