291 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21511258)
21. Long-term study of bone remodelling after femoral stem: a comparison between dexa and finite element simulation.
Herrera A; Panisello JJ; Ibarz E; Cegoñino J; Puértolas JA; Gracia L
J Biomech; 2007; 40(16):3615-25. PubMed ID: 17675042
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Bone remodelling around uncemented metallic and ceramic acetabular components.
Ghosh R; Mukherjee K; Gupta S
Proc Inst Mech Eng H; 2013 May; 227(5):490-502. PubMed ID: 23637259
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. A method of quantification of stress shielding in the proximal femur using hierarchical computational modeling.
Be'ery-Lipperman M; Gefen A
Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin; 2006 Feb; 9(1):35-44. PubMed ID: 16880155
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Stem geometry changes initial femoral fixation stability of a revised press-fit hip prosthesis: A finite element study.
Russell RD; Huo MH; Rodrigues DC; Kosmopoulos V
Technol Health Care; 2016 Nov; 24(6):865-872. PubMed ID: 27434281
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. A comparison of cortical strain after cemented and press-fit proximal and distal femoral replacement.
Hua J; Walker PS
J Orthop Res; 1992 Sep; 10(5):739-44. PubMed ID: 1500986
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. [Comparative periprosthetic bone density measurements of the proximal femur shaft using dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) with experimental "Press Fit-gliding Stem Prosthesis"].
Krüger A; Berli B; Lampert C; Kränzlin C; Morscher E
Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb; 1998; 136(2):115-25. PubMed ID: 9615973
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Investigation into the affect of cementing techniques on load transfer in the resurfaced femoral head: a multi-femur finite element analysis.
Radcliffe IA; Taylor M
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon); 2007 May; 22(4):422-30. PubMed ID: 17270328
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Correlation of computed finite element stresses to bone density after remodeling around cementless femoral implants.
Skinner HB; Kilgus DJ; Keyak J; Shimaoka EE; Kim AS; Tipton JS
Clin Orthop Relat Res; 1994 Aug; (305):178-89. PubMed ID: 8050227
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Predicting time-dependent remodeling of bone around immediately loaded dental implants with different designs.
Eser A; Tonuk E; Akca K; Cehreli MC
Med Eng Phys; 2010 Jan; 32(1):22-31. PubMed ID: 19884034
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Clinical outcome and quantitative evaluation of periprosthetic bone-remodeling of an uncemented femoral component with taper design. A prospective study.
Pitto RP; Schramm M; Hohmann D; Schmidt R
Chir Organi Mov; 2001; 86(2):87-97. PubMed ID: 12025051
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. The influence of implant diameter and length on stress distribution of osseointegrated implants related to crestal bone geometry: a three-dimensional finite element analysis.
Baggi L; Cappelloni I; Di Girolamo M; Maceri F; Vairo G
J Prosthet Dent; 2008 Dec; 100(6):422-31. PubMed ID: 19033026
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Comparison of periprosthetic bone remodelling after implantation of anatomic and straight stem prostheses in total hip arthroplasty.
Grochola LF; Habermann B; Mastrodomenico N; Kurth A
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg; 2008 Apr; 128(4):383-92. PubMed ID: 18038142
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Effects of material properties of femoral hip components on bone remodeling.
Weinans H; Huiskes R; Grootenboer HJ
J Orthop Res; 1992 Nov; 10(6):845-53. PubMed ID: 1403299
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Surgical variables affect the mechanics of a hip resurfacing system.
Long JP; Bartel DL
Clin Orthop Relat Res; 2006 Dec; 453():115-22. PubMed ID: 17016222
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Numerical evaluation of bone remodelling and adaptation considering different hip prosthesis designs.
Levadnyi I; Awrejcewicz J; Gubaua JE; Pereira JT
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon); 2017 Dec; 50():122-129. PubMed ID: 29100185
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Changes in strain distribution of loaded proximal femora caused by different types of cementless femoral stems.
Decking R; Puhl W; Simon U; Claes LE
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon); 2006 Jun; 21(5):495-501. PubMed ID: 16457913
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Limited range of motion of hip resurfacing arthroplasty due to unfavorable ratio of prosthetic head size and femoral neck diameter.
Kluess D; Zietz C; Lindner T; Mittelmeier W; Schmitz KP; Bader R
Acta Orthop; 2008 Dec; 79(6):748-54. PubMed ID: 19085490
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Femoral bone loss following hip replacement. A comparative study.
Pritchett JW
Clin Orthop Relat Res; 1995 May; (314):156-61. PubMed ID: 7634629
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Design and fabrication of cementless hip stems.
Walker PS; Robertson DD
Clin Orthop Relat Res; 1988 Oct; (235):25-34. PubMed ID: 3416530
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Probabilistic finite element analysis of the uncemented hip replacement--effect of femur characteristics and implant design geometry.
Dopico-González C; New AM; Browne M
J Biomech; 2010 Feb; 43(3):512-20. PubMed ID: 19896129
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
