410 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24467871)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. Comparative finite element analysis of the biomechanical stability of 2.0 fixation plates in atrophic mandibular fractures.
Vajgel A; Camargo IB; Willmersdorf RB; de Melo TM; Laureano Filho JR; Vasconcellos RJ
J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2013 Feb; 71(2):335-42. PubMed ID: 23351762
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. Stability of locking and conventional 2.0-mm miniplate/screw systems after sagittal split ramus osteotomy: finite element analysis.
Oguz Y; Uckan S; Ozden AU; Uckan E; Eser A
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2009 Aug; 108(2):174-7. PubMed ID: 19615655
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Optimal design of an individual endoprosthesis for the reconstruction of extensive mandibular defects with finite element analysis.
Li P; Shen L; Li J; Liang R; Tian W; Tang W
J Craniomaxillofac Surg; 2014 Jan; 42(1):73-8. PubMed ID: 23541861
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. [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]
9. 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]
10. Influences of implant condyle geometry on bone and screw strains in a temporomandibular implant.
Mesnard M; Ramos A; Simões JA
J Craniomaxillofac Surg; 2014 Apr; 42(3):194-200. PubMed ID: 23726645
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Analysis of complications after reconstruction of bone defects involving complete mandibular resection using finite element modelling.
Markwardt J; Pfeifer G; Eckelt U; Reitemeier B
Onkologie; 2007 Mar; 30(3):121-6. PubMed ID: 17341898
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Does fixation method affects temporomandibular joints after mandibular advancement?
Ureturk EU; Apaydin A
J Craniomaxillofac Surg; 2018 Jun; 46(6):923-931. PubMed ID: 29724535
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Biomechanical effect of medial cortical support and medial screw support on locking plate fixation in proximal humeral fractures with a medial gap: a finite element analysis.
Yang P; Zhang Y; Liu J; Xiao J; Ma LM; Zhu CR
Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc; 2015; 49(2):203-9. PubMed ID: 26012943
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Comparison of five different fixation techniques of sagittal split ramus osteotomy using three-dimensional finite elements analysis.
Sato FR; Asprino L; Noritomi PY; da Silva JV; de Moraes M
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2012 Aug; 41(8):934-41. PubMed ID: 22510341
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Biomechanical feasibility of non-locking system in patient-specific mandibular reconstruction using fibular free flaps.
Zhong S; Shi Q; Van Dessel J; Gu Y; Lübbers HT; Yang S; Sun Y; Politis C
J Mech Behav Biomed Mater; 2023 Dec; 148():106197. PubMed ID: 37875041
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
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. Finite element analysis of biplanar customized reconstruction plates for lateral and central segmental defects of mandible.
Demir E; Yalçın G; Kalaycı A
Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin; 2024; 27(4):489-497. PubMed ID: 36920278
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
