176 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24110400)
1. Biomechanical effects of screw fixation in second mandibular reconstruction plate.
Chang YW; Liu PH
Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc; 2013; 2013():3167-70. PubMed ID: 24110400
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. The biomechanical aspects of reconstruction for segmental defects of the mandible: a finite element study to assess the optimisation of plate and screw factors.
Bujtár P; Simonovics J; Váradi K; Sándor GK; Avery CM
J Craniomaxillofac Surg; 2014 Sep; 42(6):855-62. PubMed ID: 24467871
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Biomechanical evaluation of a new MatrixMandible plating system on cadaver mandibles.
Gateno J; Cookston C; Hsu SS; Stal DN; Durrani SK; Gold J; Ismaily S; Alexander JW; Noble PC; Xia JJ
J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2013 Nov; 71(11):1900-14. PubMed ID: 24012175
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. [Stress tests of reconstruction plates for bridging mandibular angle defects].
Knoll WD; Gaida A; Maurer P
Mund Kiefer Gesichtschir; 2004 Jul; 8(4):237-43. PubMed ID: 15293119
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Mechanical stress in plates for bridging reconstruction mandibular defects and purposes of double plate reinforcement.
Hoefert S; Taier R
J Craniomaxillofac Surg; 2018 May; 46(5):785-794. PubMed ID: 29567342
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Biomechanical evaluation of a novel hybrid reconstruction plate for mandible segmental defects: A finite element analysis and fatigue testing.
Wu CH; Lin YS; Liu YS; Lin CL
J Craniomaxillofac Surg; 2017 Oct; 45(10):1671-1680. PubMed ID: 28838835
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Comparative evaluation of a patient-specific customised plate designs and screws for partial mandibular reconstruction.
Dutta A; Mukherjee K; Seesala VS; Dutta K; Paul RR; Dhara S; Gupta S
Med Eng Phys; 2023 Jan; 111():103941. PubMed ID: 36792242
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Finite element analysis of low-profile reconstruction plates for atrophic mandibles: a comparison of novel 3D grid and conventional plate designs.
Guerra RC; de Fátima Borim Pulino B; Salomão Júnior VF; Dos Santos Pereira R; Thieringer FM; Sacco R; Sader R; Vieira EH
Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2024 Jun; 28(2):595-603. PubMed ID: 37516667
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. The comparison between various methods of mandibular reconstruction based on finite element analysis.
Parvan M; Khaghaninejad MS; Karimi MT
Proc Inst Mech Eng H; 2024 Apr; 238(4):423-429. PubMed ID: 38415325
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Biomechanical comparison of locking and non-locking patient-specific mandibular reconstruction plate using finite element analysis.
Zhong S; Shi Q; Sun Y; Yang S; Van Dessel J; Gu Y; Chen X; Lübbers HT; Politis C
J Mech Behav Biomed Mater; 2021 Dec; 124():104849. PubMed ID: 34563812
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Adaquate fixation of plates for stability during mandibular reconstruction.
Kimura A; Nagasao T; Kaneko T; Tamaki T; Miyamoto J; Nakajima T
J Craniomaxillofac Surg; 2006 Jun; 34(4):193-200. PubMed ID: 16624567
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Finite Element Evaluation of Different Osteosynthesis Variations That Used After Segmental Mandibular Resection.
Şanal KO; Özden B; Baş B
J Craniofac Surg; 2017 Jan; 28(1):61-65. PubMed ID: 27893561
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Customized mandibular reconstruction plates improve mechanical performance in a mandibular reconstruction model.
Gutwald R; Jaeger R; Lambers FM
Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin; 2017 Mar; 20(4):426-435. PubMed ID: 27887036
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. A comparison of stresses in implantation for grafted and plate-and-screw mandible reconstruction.
Nagasao T; Miyamoto J; Tamaki T; Kawana H
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2010 Mar; 109(3):346-56. PubMed ID: 20097102
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Biomechanical Evaluation and Factorial Analysis of the 3-Dimensional Printing Self-Designed Metallic Reconstruction Plate for Mandibular Segmental Defect.
Lin TS; Chiu TF; Hsu JT; Chen CC; Chang LR; Huang HL
J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2022 Apr; 80(4):775-783. PubMed ID: 34968419
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Biomechanical testing of different osteosynthesis systems for segmental resection of the mandible.
Schupp W; Arzdorf M; Linke B; Gutwald R
J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2007 May; 65(5):924-30. PubMed ID: 17448842
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Analysis of mechanical stress in reconstruction plates for bridging mandibular angle defects.
Knoll WD; Gaida A; Maurer P
J Craniomaxillofac Surg; 2006 Jun; 34(4):201-9. PubMed ID: 16644232
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Biomechanical evaluation of different angle-stable locking plate systems for mandibular surgery.
Lieger O; Schaller B; Bürki A; Büchler P
J Craniomaxillofac Surg; 2015 Oct; 43(8):1589-94. PubMed ID: 26297419
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Comparison of locking and non-locking reconstruction plate-screw system in lateral mandibular defects by finite element analysis.
Muftuoglu G; Bayram B; Aydin P
J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2021 Sep; 122(4):e65-e69. PubMed ID: 33161169
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Comparison of Neck Screw and Conventional Fixation Techniques in Mandibular Condyle Fractures Using 3-Dimensional Finite Element Analysis.
Conci RA; Tomazi FH; Noritomi PY; da Silva JV; Fritscher GG; Heitz C
J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2015 Jul; 73(7):1321-7. PubMed ID: 25869984
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
