ArticleBone & joint research2026
In vivo 3D kinematic analysis of cervical facet joints under physiological loading in healthy individuals.
Article in Bone & joint research, 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Aims: As cervical total disc arthroplasty progresses, the biomechanics and physiology of cervical facet joints are gaining more attention. Yet, knowledge of their in vivo kinematics and synergistic functions remains limited. Methods: Approved by the ethics committee of a tertiary hospital, 20 asymptomatic adults (10 males, 10 females; mean age 34.4 years (SD 9.2)) were recruited with informed consent. Participants underwent cone-beam CT (CBCT) scans in seven functional cervical positions. 3D vertebral models were reconstructed, and local coordinate systems were established for each facet joint. Using 3D-3D registration, segmental motions and displacements were calculated in six degrees of freedom relative to the neutral position. Rotations were described as Cardan angles, and displacements as left-right, anteroposterior, and superoinferior components. Range of motion (ROM) was defined as the absolute difference between end positions and averaged across left and right facet joints. Results: In vivo analysis revealed distinct kinematic characteristics of the cervical facet joints. During flexion-extension, C0-C1 exhibited the greatest ROM (mean 25.6° (SD 5.9°)), whereas C2-C3 and C6-C7 showed relatively restricted motion. The mean total craniocervical (C0-C7) primary ROM was 62.9° (SD 7.6°), with segmental displacements mainly occurring in the anteroposterior direction, particularly at C0-C1. During axial rotation, the C1-C2 joint accounted for approximately 85% of the total motion (mean 51.4° (SD 5.1°)) and demonstrated the largest LR displacement (mean 5.2 mm (SD 4.4)). In lateral bending, the overall ROM was 35.2° (SD 7.7°), with C1-C2 again contributing the most and showing the largest LR displacement (mean 8.7 mm (SD 2.2)). These findings highlight the dominant role of C0-C1 in flexion-extension and C1-C2 in axial rotation and lateral bending, as well as the segment-specific displacement patterns of cervical facet joints. Conclusion: CBCT-based 3D-3D registration enabled precise in vivo assessment of cervical facet joint kinematics. These findings could offer valuable insights into the rehabilitation of facet joint manipulation and provide meaningful prospects for future research.
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.