113 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11186609)
1. A comparative study on different methods of automatic mesh generation of human femurs. Medical Engineering and Physics 20 (1998): 1-10.
Viceconti M
Med Eng Phys; 2000 Jun; 22(5):379-80. PubMed ID: 11186609
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. A comparative study on different methods of automatic mesh generation of human femurs.
Viceconti M; Bellingeri L; Cristofolini L; Toni A
Med Eng Phys; 1998 Jan; 20(1):1-10. PubMed ID: 9664280
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Subject-specific finite element simulation of the human femur considering inhomogeneous material properties: a straightforward method and convergence study.
Hölzer A; Schröder C; Woiczinski M; Sadoghi P; Scharpf A; Heimkes B; Jansson V
Comput Methods Programs Biomed; 2013 Apr; 110(1):82-8. PubMed ID: 23084242
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. A comparison between automatically generated linear and parabolic tetrahedra when used to mesh a human femur.
Polgar K; Viceconti M; O'Connor JJ
Proc Inst Mech Eng H; 2001; 215(1):85-94. PubMed ID: 11323989
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. [Automatic generation of 3-D finite element codes of the human femur].
Lengsfeld M; Kaminsky J; Merz B; Franke RP
Biomed Tech (Berl); 1994 May; 39(5):117-22. PubMed ID: 8049341
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. The use of sparse CT datasets for auto-generating accurate FE models of the femur and pelvis.
Shim VB; Pitto RP; Streicher RM; Hunter PJ; Anderson IA
J Biomech; 2007; 40(1):26-35. PubMed ID: 16427645
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. [A new method to reconstruct the spatial structure of human proximal femur and establishment of the finite element model].
Ma X; Fu X; Ma J; Zhao Y; Wang T; Wang Z; Zhang Y; Dong B; Yang Y
Sheng Wu Yi Xue Gong Cheng Xue Za Zhi; 2011 Feb; 28(1):71-5. PubMed ID: 21485187
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Automatic generation of accurate subject-specific bone finite element models to be used in clinical studies.
Viceconti M; Davinelli M; Taddei F; Cappello A
J Biomech; 2004 Oct; 37(10):1597-605. PubMed ID: 15336935
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Prediction of the mechanical response of the femur with uncertain elastic properties.
Wille H; Rank E; Yosibash Z
J Biomech; 2012 Apr; 45(7):1140-8. PubMed ID: 22417868
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Image-based vs. mesh-based statistical appearance models of the human femur: implications for finite element simulations.
Bonaretti S; Seiler C; Boichon C; Reyes M; Büchler P
Med Eng Phys; 2014 Dec; 36(12):1626-35. PubMed ID: 25271191
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Validation of a parametric finite element human femur model.
Klein KF; Hu J; Reed MP; Schneider LW; Rupp JD
Traffic Inj Prev; 2017 May; 18(4):420-426. PubMed ID: 28095035
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 3-D femoral stress analysis using CT scans and p-version FEM.
Basu PK; Beall AG; Simmons DJ; Vannier M
Biomater Med Devices Artif Organs; 1985-1986; 13(3-4):163-86. PubMed ID: 3841817
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Trabecular structure compared to stress trajectories in the proximal femur and the calcaneus.
Vander Sloten J; Van der Perre G
J Biomed Eng; 1989 May; 11(3):203-8. PubMed ID: 2724941
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Experimental validation of finite element model for proximal composite femur using optical measurements.
Grassi L; Väänänen SP; Amin Yavari S; Weinans H; Jurvelin JS; Zadpoor AA; Isaksson H
J Mech Behav Biomed Mater; 2013 May; 21():86-94. PubMed ID: 23510970
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Statistical modelling of the whole human femur incorporating geometric and material properties.
Bryan R; Mohan PS; Hopkins A; Galloway F; Taylor M; Nair PB
Med Eng Phys; 2010 Jan; 32(1):57-65. PubMed ID: 19932044
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. The mesh-matching algorithm: an automatic 3D mesh generator for finite element structures.
Couteau B; Payan Y; Lavallée S
J Biomech; 2000 Aug; 33(8):1005-9. PubMed ID: 10828331
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The biomechanics of human femurs in axial and torsional loading: comparison of finite element analysis, human cadaveric femurs, and synthetic femurs.
Papini M; Zdero R; Schemitsch EH; Zalzal P
J Biomech Eng; 2007 Feb; 129(1):12-9. PubMed ID: 17227093
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Patient-specific finite-element analyses of the proximal femur with orthotropic material properties validated by experiments.
Trabelsi N; Yosibash Z
J Biomech Eng; 2011 Jun; 133(6):061001. PubMed ID: 21744921
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. The effect of cortex thickness on intact femur biomechanics: a comparison of finite element analysis with synthetic femurs.
Zdero R; Bougherara H; Dubov A; Shah S; Zalzal P; Mahfud A; Schemitsch EH
Proc Inst Mech Eng H; 2010; 224(7):831-40. PubMed ID: 20839651
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Prediction of the structural response of the femoral shaft under dynamic loading using subject-specific finite element models.
Park G; Kim T; Forman J; Panzer MB; Crandall JR
Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin; 2017 Aug; 20(11):1151-1166. PubMed ID: 28632407
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
