132 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10433425)
1. The relation between surface roughness and interfacial shear strength for bone-anchored implants. A mathematical model.
Hansson S; Norton M
J Biomech; 1999 Aug; 32(8):829-36. PubMed ID: 10433425
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Surface roughness parameters as predictors of anchorage strength in bone: a critical analysis.
Hansson S
J Biomech; 2000 Oct; 33(10):1297-303. PubMed ID: 10899340
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Nondestructive measurements of implant-bone interface shear modulus and effects of implant geometry in pull-out tests.
Berzins A; Shah B; Weinans H; Sumner DR
J Biomed Mater Res; 1997 Mar; 34(3):337-40. PubMed ID: 9086403
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. The influence of bone damage on press-fit mechanics.
Bishop NE; Höhn JC; Rothstock S; Damm NB; Morlock MM
J Biomech; 2014 Apr; 47(6):1472-8. PubMed ID: 24503049
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Similarity of stress distribution in bone for various implant surface roughness heights of similar form.
Skalak R; Zhao Y
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res; 2000; 2(4):225-30. PubMed ID: 11359282
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Do Surface Porosity and Pore Size Influence Mechanical Properties and Cellular Response to PEEK?
Torstrick FB; Evans NT; Stevens HY; Gall K; Guldberg RE
Clin Orthop Relat Res; 2016 Nov; 474(11):2373-2383. PubMed ID: 27154533
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. A 1-year follow-up of implants of differing surface roughness placed in rabbit bone.
Wennerberg A; Ektessabi A; Albrektsson T; Johansson C; Andersson B
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 1997; 12(4):486-94. PubMed ID: 9274077
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Experimental investigation of the effect of surface roughness on bone-cement-implant shear bond strength.
van Tol AF; Tibballs JE; Roar Gjerdet N; Ellison P
J Mech Behav Biomed Mater; 2013 Dec; 28():254-62. PubMed ID: 24004958
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Interfacial shear strength of endosseous implants.
Butz F; Ogawa T; Nishimura I
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2011; 26(4):746-51. PubMed ID: 21841983
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Bone response to unloaded titanium implants in the fibula, iliac crest, and scapula: an animal study in the Yorkshire pig.
Rohner D; Meng CS; Hutmacher DW; Tsai KT
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2003 Aug; 32(4):383-9. PubMed ID: 14505621
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Experimental evidence for interfacial biochemical bonding in osseointegrated titanium implants.
Sul YT; Kwon DH; Kang BS; Oh SJ; Johansson C
Clin Oral Implants Res; 2013 Aug; 24 Suppl A100():8-19. PubMed ID: 22093014
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Interface mechanics of porous titanium implants.
Clemow AJ; Weinstein AM; Klawitter JJ; Koeneman J; Anderson J
J Biomed Mater Res; 1981 Jan; 15(1):73-82. PubMed ID: 7348706
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Effect of micro-roughness produced by TiO2 blasting--tensile testing of bone attachment by using coin-shaped implants.
Rønold HJ; Ellingsen JE
Biomaterials; 2002 Nov; 23(21):4211-9. PubMed ID: 12194524
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. The influence of surface-blasting on the incorporation of titanium-alloy implants in a rabbit intramedullary model.
Feighan JE; Goldberg VM; Davy D; Parr JA; Stevenson S
J Bone Joint Surg Am; 1995 Sep; 77(9):1380-95. PubMed ID: 7673290
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Biomechanical and histomorphometric comparison between zirconia implants with varying surface textures and a titanium implant in the maxilla of miniature pigs.
Gahlert M; Gudehus T; Eichhorn S; Steinhauser E; Kniha H; Erhardt W
Clin Oral Implants Res; 2007 Oct; 18(5):662-8. PubMed ID: 17608736
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Stress shielding at the bone-implant interface: Influence of surface roughness and of the bone-implant contact ratio.
Raffa ML; Nguyen VH; Hernigou P; Flouzat-Lachaniette CH; Haiat G
J Orthop Res; 2021 Jun; 39(6):1174-1183. PubMed ID: 32852064
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Peri-implant osteogenesis in health and osteoporosis.
Marco F; Milena F; Gianluca G; Vittoria O
Micron; 2005; 36(7-8):630-44. PubMed ID: 16182543
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Bone ingrowth on the surface of endosseous implants. Part 1: Mathematical model.
Moreo P; García-Aznar JM; Doblaré M
J Theor Biol; 2009 Sep; 260(1):1-12. PubMed ID: 18762197
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Correlation of bony ingrowth to the distribution of stress and strain parameters surrounding a porous-coated implant.
Qin YX; McLeod KJ; Guilak F; Chiang FP; Rubin CT
J Orthop Res; 1996 Nov; 14(6):862-70. PubMed ID: 8982127
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Gap healing enhanced by hydroxyapatite coating in dogs.
Søballe K; Hansen ES; Brockstedt-Rasmussen H; Hjortdal VE; Juhl GI; Pedersen CM; Hvid I; Bünger C
Clin Orthop Relat Res; 1991 Nov; (272):300-7. PubMed ID: 1657476
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
