ArticleAmerican journal of translational research2024
Finite element comparison of titanium and polyetheretherketone materials for mandibular defect reconstruction.
Article in American journal of translational research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A Comparative Finite Element Analysis of Titanium, Autogenous Bone, and Polyetheretherketone (PEEK)-Based Solutions for Mandibular Reconstruction.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the biomechanical performance of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and titanium alloys in a base-type fixation system for mandibular defect reconstruction following partial resection due to tumors, trauma, or cancer, using finite element analysis.
methodsFinite element analysis was conducted to simulate a fixation system made from titanium alloys, including pure titanium (Ti), Ti6Al4V (TC4), and Ti35Nb7Zr5Ta (TiNb), as well as PEEK materials, including unmodified PEEK, glass fiber-reinforced PEEK (GFR-PEEK), and carbon fiber-reinforced PEEK (CFR-PEEK). The biomechanical performance of these materials was compared.
resultsThe PEEK-based fixation systems generated higher maximum stress on the mandible and fibula compared to the titanium alloy systems, particularly with the GFR-PEEK fixation system. When loaded in the anterior region, the maximum stress on the mandible exceeded its yield strength, indicating that both PEEK and GFR-PEEK are unsuitable for mandibular defect repair. CFR-PEEK, however, exhibited more favorable stress distribution, making it a better candidate for these applications.
conclusionProlonged low stress on the bone may result in resorption or degeneration. Among the materials analyzed, CFR-PEEK demonstrated the most stable performance, suggesting it as the optimal choice for mandibular defect repair in fixation systems.
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.