ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Finite Element Analysis of a 3D-Printed Acetabular Prosthesis for an Acetabular Defect According to the Paprosky Classification.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Influence of Immediate Versus Delayed Loading on Peri-Implant Bone Healing: A Comparative FEA Study of Titanium Threaded and Scaffold Dental Implants.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Computer Simulation of the Mechanical Behavior of the 'Zygomatic Bones-Implants-Splinting Bar-Removable Overdenture' Dental Structure Under Operational Loads.Dentistry journal · 2025Article
- The Influence of Insertion Torque on Stress Distribution in Peri-Implant Bones Around Ultra-Short Implants: An FEA Study.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Article
- Custom 3D-printed split-type triflange implants for severe acetabular defects: mid-term clinical outcomes and biomechanical insights from finite element analysis.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The treatment of Paprosky Type III acetabular defects is a significant challenge in orthopedic surgery, as standard components often do not fit properly. This study aims to evaluate the biomechanical efficacy of a custom 3D-printed PEEK acetabular prosthesis compared to a conventional titanium implant. A 3D model of the pelvis was created using a computed tomography scanner and a custom-made acetabular implant was designed. Finite element analysis (FEA) was performed using Ansys Workbench to evaluate the stress and strain distribution of two materials on the pelvic bone. The results showed that the titanium prosthesis model had less strain transmitted to the bone, while the PEEK model had better stress transmission and bone stimulation. The use of custom implants reduced the risk of stress shielding, potentially improving long-term bone health. Three-dimensional-printed acetabular prostheses therefore offer significant advantages over traditional implants, suggesting improved implant stability and reduced failure rates.
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.