ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Does Counterclockwise Rotation Affect Fixation Stability? An In Vitro Biomechanical Study of Large Mandibular Advancements.
Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The selection of an appropriate fixation system is critical for maintaining postoperative stability after sagittal split ramus osteotomy (SSRO), especially in cases involving large mandibular advancements and counterclockwise rotation, where mechanical stresses may compromise treatment outcomes. This in vitro study evaluated the biomechanical stability of five fixation systems following sagittal split ramus osteotomy (SSRO) under two mandibular advancement conditions. Fifty polyurethane hemimandibles were allocated into two experimental groups: Group 1, submitted to 10-mm linear advancement, and Group 2, submitted to 10-mm advancement associated with 20° counterclockwise rotation. Each group was further divided into five subgroups according to the fixation design employed: (A) conventional straight plate, (B) angled plate, (C) sagittal plate, (D) 10-hole miniplate, and (E) two 4-hole miniplates. Biomechanical performance was assessed by compression testing using a universal testing machine. Complementary analyses were performed using strain gauges and digital image correlation. Group 1 in fixation B, C and D demonstrated higher biomechanical resistance than Group 2, however without significance difference. Among the evaluated configurations, subgroup E exhibited the highest resistance values in both experimental conditions. Statistically significant differences were observed among fixation systems within each group (
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.