Biomechanical evaluation of 3D-printed porous lattice versus solid mandibular implants: an in vitro study.

Hao Zhang, Jui-Ting Hsu, Lih-Jyh Fuh, Heng-Li Huang

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Hao ZhangSchool of Dentistry, China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan.

Jui-Ting HsuDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan.

Lih-Jyh FuhSchool of Dentistry, China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan.

Heng-Li HuangSchool of Dentistry, China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan. hlhuang@mail.cmu.edu.tw.

Funding

China Medical University, Taiwan CMU113-MF-65National Science and Technology Council NSTC 113-2221-E-039 -002 -MY3

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Segmental mandibular reconstruction is challenging. This in-vitro study compared the biomechanics of two 3D-printed porous Ti-6Al-4 V implants (Quad-diametral-cross, Hex-vase) versus a solid implant using a dual-material 3D-printed mandibular model and strain gauges. A 100 N static load was applied. Under eccentric loading, the solid implant generated extremely high tensile strain (871.67 µε), while porous designs reduced peak strains. The Hex-vase design transmitted the highest compressive strain (-795.85 µε), 65% greater in magnitude than the solid, suggesting improved mechanical stimulus transfer to peri-implant bone. The QDC design provided a moderate environment, suitable for compromised bone. Porous implants are biomechanically superior, offering customizable solutions to mitigate stress shielding.

Indexed as

MandiblePrinting, Three-DimensionalAlloysBiomechanical PhenomenaHumansMaterials TestingPorosityStress, MechanicalTensile StrengthTitaniumAlloysTitaniumtitanium alloy (TiAl6V4)Additive manufacturingMandibular reconstructionPorous implantStrain gaugeStress shielding

Identifiers

PMID42045386

DOI10.1038/s41598-026-50741-6

PMCPMC13287629

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.