ArticleBMC oral health2026
A finite element-based biomechanical analysis of fixation systems used in advancement genioplasty.
Article in BMC oral health, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe purpose of this study was to investigate the biomechanical behavior of different fixation systems used in advancement genioplasty using finite element analysis (FEA). The study aimed to provide numerical insight into stress distribution and displacement patterns under controlled loading conditions, rather than to evaluate clinical performance or long-term stability.
methodsA three-dimensional finite element model of a human mandible was reconstructed from the Visible Human Project dataset. Cortical and trabecular bone, fixation plates, and screws were modeled as homogeneous, isotropic, and linearly elastic materials. Advancement genioplasty was simulated at different advancement distances, and fixation was achieved using various plate configurations. A static horizontal load of 100 N was applied to the distal segment. Stress distribution and displacement were evaluated for the fixation devices and surrounding bone structures.
resultsAs advancement increased, principal stress values in cortical and trabecular bone decreased in both L-plate and X-plate models due to increased plate length and material volume. X-plate models consistently produced higher stresses on bone, plates, and screws compared with L-plates. Bicortical screw fixation generated the lowest stress values in bone; however, increasing advancement reduced screw penetration into the proximal segment, increasing local stress concentrations. All plates stresses remained below the material’s yield strength.
conclusionsWithin the limitations of a simplified, static finite element model, the findings provide comparative biomechanical insight into the mechanical response of different fixation systems used in advancement genioplasty. The results should be interpreted as numerical trends rather than indicators of clinical superiority or long-term stability.
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.