ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2026
Analysis of biomechanical load cases for the investigation of pedicle screws ASTM F1717 vs. Toggling.
Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The anchorage of pedicle screws is essential for spinal stability during surgical procedures. Static pullout tests differ substantially from the dynamic loading conditions that occur Methods: The two loading cases were investigated under standardized conditions using a 6DoF sensor and two types of polyurethane foams. Both test configurations were examined on an adaptable test setup that allowed the integration of the 6DoF sensor and the foam blocks (10 PCF Blocks from Sawbones of the following types: open-cell and cellular foam). Measurements were performed under compression (10-110 N) and under alternating compression and tensile load (±110 N). Cyclic loading was applied for 15 cycles when using the 6DoF sensor and for 500 cycles when the screws were anchored in the foam. Results: In the ASTM F1717 setup, the boundary conditions resulted in a significantly higher force in the z-direction and a positive moment around the test bench's rotational axis. In the Toggling setup, an alternating moment around the rotational axis and a displacement in the z-direction were observed. Most foam (100% open-cell foam and 50% cellular foam) reached the failure criterion before completion of testing. The cellular foam withstood the ASTM F1717 loading in both directions, whereas under Toggling, it completed 40 ± 18 cycles in compression and 11 ± 5 cycles under alternating compression and tensile loading. Conclusion: The 6DoF measurements yielded consistent results, which were determined by the specific boundary conditions of the two load cases. However, the isolated load cases used in ASTM F1717 and in Toggling tests do not reflect the full spectrum of physiological loading. For the development of a universal testing method for pedicle screws in human specimens, the implementation of a multiaxial cyclic loading should be considered. In the future, universal spine simulators could be alternative to the isolated loading protocols currently in use.
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.