ArticleBMC oral health2026
Finite element analysis of patient specific three-dimensional titanium plate versus conventional two miniplate fixation for mandibular angle fractures.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMandibular angle fractures are among the most common maxillofacial fractures and represent a biomechanically challenging region because of complex functional loading. Conventional two miniplate fixation is widely used to provide fracture stability; however, stress concentration within the fixation hardware may affect its biomechanical performance. Recent advances in computer-aided design and manufacturing (CAD/CAM) have enabled the development of patient specific fixation techniques designed to improve implant adaptation and optimize stress distribution.
objectiveThis study aimed to compare the biomechanical behaviour of a patient specific three-dimensional (3D) titanium plate and conventional two miniplate fixation for mandibular angle fractures using finite element analysis (FEA). MATERIALS AND
methodsA three-dimensional mandibular model was reconstructed from computed tomography data obtained from a 25-year-old fully dentate male patient. Cortical and cancellous bone structures were generated using Mimics and Geomagic Design X software. Two fixation models and fixation hardware were assembled using SolidWorks software: Model A consisted of conventional two miniplate fixation, while Model B consisted of a patient specific three- dimensional titanium plate contoured along the tension zone of the mandible. The models were imported into ANSYS software for finite element analysis under simulated unilateral clenching conditions. Von Mises stress, maximum principal stress, and total displacement were evaluated under identical loading and boundary conditions.
resultsThe patient specific 3D plate model demonstrated lower maximum von Mises stress within the fixation plate (326.19 MPa) compared with the conventional two miniplate system (417.48 MPa). Maximum principal stress in cortical bone was higher in the patient specific plate model (121.03 MPa) compared with the conventional fixation model (87.759 MPa). Total displacement was greater in the patient specific plate model (157.32 μm) than in the conventional system (131.47 μm). However, displacement values in both models remained within reported ranges considered acceptable for fracture healing.
conclusionPatient specific and conventional fixation techniques exhibited distinct biomechanical characteristics under simulated loading conditions. Both implant design and fixation configuration influence the biomechanical behaviour of mandibular angle fracture fixation.
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.