ArticleJournal of oral biology and craniofacial research
Finite element biomechanical comparison of bone-driven and occlusion-driven fibular flap positioning in lateral segmental mandibular reconstruction.
Article in Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research. 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.
- Finite Element Analysis of Ultra-Short, Extra-Short, and Conventional Dental Implants in Fibula Free Flap Mandibular Reconstruction.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
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
Objective: To evaluate, using finite-element analysis (FEA), the stress-strain state of mandibular bone and the bone component of a microvascular free fibula flap (FFF) reconstructing a lateral segmental mandibular defect, comparing two flap positions relevant to implant-supported fixed prosthetic rehabilitation. Materials and methods: CT-derived three-dimensional models of a reconstructed mandible were generated in two geometries: (A) flap aligned with the inferior mandibular border and (B) flap positioned at the level of the alveolar crest. Each geometry received two endosseous implants and a fixed prosthesis and was subjected to representative masticatory loading (vertical/occlusal and anterior/incisal). Four FEA models (2 positions × 2 load cases) were analyzed, with two predefined regions of interest per model (distal and medial), each examined at the upper and lower margins. Results: Compared with Model A (inferior mandibular border), Model B (alveolar crest) produced lower peak bone stresses in most analyzed regions (≈10-40% reduction) under mastication-representative static molar and incisal loads. The only exception was the medial-inferior margin under incisal loading, where stress increased markedly (8.96 vs 2.22 MPa; ∼4-fold). Under occlusal loading, medial-inferior stresses were <1 MPa in both models. Across both positioning scenarios, peak crestal bone von Mises stresses clustered near the implant neck (crestal bone); analyses were restricted to bone. Conclusion: A higher (alveolar-crest) position of the bone component of the FFF yields a more favorable stress-strain environment and load distribution, supporting more favorable biomechanical conditions for osseointegration and long-term function.
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.