ArticleJournal of materials science. Materials in medicine2024
Assessment of cranial reconstruction utilizing various implant materials: finite element study.
Article in Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Computational analysis of L4-L5 interspinous process devices and interbody fusion spacers using ceramic and polymeric materials via finite element modeling and artificial intelligence.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Biomaterials and Tissue Engineering in Neurosurgery: Current Innovations and Future Directions.Biotech (Basel (Switzerland)) · 2025Review
- Cranial Bone Repair and Regeneration After Trauma: Forensic and Clinical Medico-Legal Consequences.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Current State of Knowledge Regarding the Treatment of Cranial Bone Defects: An Overview.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Finite element investigation for improving chest wall reconstruction process using ceramic and polymeric implants.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The human head can sometimes experience impact loads that result in skull fractures or other injuries, leading to the need for a craniectomy. Cranioplasty is a procedure that involves replacing the removed portion with either autologous bone or alloplastic material. While titanium has traditionally been the preferred material for cranial implants due to its excellent properties and biocompatibility, its limitations have prompted the search for alternative materials. This research aimed to explore alternative materials to titanium for cranial implants in order to address the limitations of titanium implants and improve the performance of the cranioplasty process. A 3D model of a defective skull was reconstructed with a cranial implant, and the implant was simulated using various stiff and soft materials (such as alumina, zirconia, hydroxyapatite, zirconia-reinforced PMMA, and PMMA) as alternatives to titanium under 2000N impact forces. Alumina and zirconia implants were found to reduce stresses and strains on the skull and brain compared to titanium implants. However, PMMA implants showed potential for causing skull damage under current loading conditions. Additionally, PMMA and hydroxyapatite implants were prone to fracture. Despite these findings, none of the implants exceeded the limits for tensile and compressive stresses and strains on the brain. Zirconia-reinforced PMMA implants were also shown to reduce stresses and strains on the skull and brain compared to PMMA implants. Alumina and zirconia show promise as alternatives to titanium for the production of cranial implants. The use of alternative implant materials to titanium has the potential to enhance the success of cranial reconstruction by overcoming the limitations associated with titanium implants.
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.