ArticleOral and maxillofacial surgery2025
Evaluating von mises stress distribution and deformation patterns in zygomaticomaxillary complex fractures- a finite element analysis study.
Article in Oral and maxillofacial surgery, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe ZMC provides essential midfacial support through its tetrapod configuration and current clinical practice lacks consensus on optimal fixation techniques for displaced fractures. This study compared stress distribution and deformation patterns across different ZMC fracture fixation methods to provide biomechanical guidance for clinical decision-making.
methodsThis finite element analysis (FEA) study was conducted using computer-generated ZMC models derived from CBCT scans of normal anatomy. Four distinct configurations were tested: intact ZMC (control), two-point fixation at frontozygomatic suture and buttress (FZ + buttress), two-point fixation at infraorbital rim and frontozygomatic suture (IOR + FZ), and three-point fixation incorporating all three sites. Standardized loading conditions (450 N occlusal force perpendicular to maxillary first molar and 150 N masticatory muscle force) were applied and material properties were defined by Young's modulus and Poisson's ratio for bone and titanium components. Comparative analysis of von Mises stress (MPa) and maximum deformation (mm) values was performed using Ansys (2019) software.
resultsThe intact ZMC established a baseline. Two-point FZ + IOR fixation demonstrated the lowest stress values (0.25 MPa), while both two-point fixation. methods showed less deformation than three-point fixation. Three-point fixation exhibited the highest deformation (0.0066 mm) with elevated stress values (0.26 MPa), offering no significant advantage over two-point approaches.
conclusionFZ + Buttress fixation provides optimal stability against masticatory forces, while FZ + Infraorbital fixation offers balanced stability for minimally displaced fractures. Three-point fixation showed no advantage over two-point approaches despite additional hardware. These findings support a conservative surgical approach with minimal hardware for stable reduction, potentially reducing operative time, soft tissue dissection, and complications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40758139What 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.