ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2025
Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2025. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Mandibular reconstruction following segmental resection is a challenging procedure. The implantation of scaffolds as an alternative for microsurgical free flaps appears as a promising strategy; however, there is still a lack of understanding of how such scaffolds should be designed to support bone regeneration. This study investigates the influence of scaffold design and its mechanical properties on the biomechanical conditions induced in mandibular reconstruction. Methods: A 3D finite element model of the human mandible was developed, and a large bone defect scenario was simulated, with physiological post-operative loading and boundary conditions. The large defect was bridged with a scaffold, supported by a titanium mesh, and stabilized with a load-bearing titanium fixation plate. To study the effect of the fixation device stiffness on the induced biomechanical conditions within the scaffold pores, two different materials were tested for the fixation device, namely, a Ti-6Al-4V titanium alloy and a polylactic acid (PLA). In addition, three different strut-based scaffold architectures were investigated with different strut orientations, while keeping the same strut diameter and similar overall porosity. Two types of material distributions through the scaffold were also studied. The first type was a hydrogel-based scaffold, whereas the second type was a multimaterial type where the scaffold was divided into three equal volume parts: in the center, a hydrogel material was employed, and in the extremities, a ceramic material. These combinations of two fixation materials and three scaffold architectures with two combination materials resulted in 12 experimental groups. Results and Discussion: No failure was predicted in the fixation devices for any of the configurations investigated. The PLA fixation device induced higher strains within the healing region than the titanium fixation device. Differences in scaffold architecture did not influence the strain levels within the healing region. Changes in the scaffold material distribution led to considerable differences in the mechanical strains within the scaffold pores. The multimaterial scaffold induced higher strains within the healing region than the only hydrogel scaffold, which might be beneficial to promote bone healing in the defect. Thus, a multimaterial scaffold seems to be able to provide a more suitable biomechanical environment to support bone regeneration, especially in large segmental defects. Future studies should focus on the mechanobiological optimization of the scaffold design and its fixation system in different clinical scenarios.
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.