389 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25219361)
1. Mapping anisotropy of the proximal femur for enhanced image based finite element analysis.
Enns-Bray WS; Owoc JS; Nishiyama KK; Boyd SK
J Biomech; 2014 Oct; 47(13):3272-8. PubMed ID: 25219361
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Mapping anisotropy improves QCT-based finite element estimation of hip strength in pooled stance and side-fall load configurations.
Panyasantisuk J; Dall'Ara E; Pretterklieber M; Pahr DH; Zysset PK
Med Eng Phys; 2018 Sep; 59():36-42. PubMed ID: 30131112
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Morphology based anisotropic finite element models of the proximal femur validated with experimental data.
Enns-Bray WS; Ariza O; Gilchrist S; Widmer Soyka RP; Vogt PJ; Palsson H; Boyd SK; Guy P; Cripton PA; Ferguson SJ; Helgason B
Med Eng Phys; 2016 Nov; 38(11):1339-1347. PubMed ID: 27641660
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Orthotropic HR-pQCT-based FE models improve strength predictions for stance but not for side-way fall loading compared to isotropic QCT-based FE models of human femurs.
Luisier B; Dall'Ara E; Pahr DH
J Mech Behav Biomed Mater; 2014 Apr; 32():287-299. PubMed ID: 24508715
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. A novel approach to estimate trabecular bone anisotropy using a database approach.
Hazrati Marangalou J; Ito K; Cataldi M; Taddei F; van Rietbergen B
J Biomech; 2013 Sep; 46(14):2356-62. PubMed ID: 23972430
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Quantitative computed tomography-based finite element analysis predictions of femoral strength and stiffness depend on computed tomography settings.
Dragomir-Daescu D; Salas C; Uthamaraj S; Rossman T
J Biomech; 2015 Jan; 48(1):153-61. PubMed ID: 25442008
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Concept and development of an orthotropic FE model of the proximal femur.
Wirtz DC; Pandorf T; Portheine F; Radermacher K; Schiffers N; Prescher A; Weichert D; Niethard FU
J Biomech; 2003 Feb; 36(2):289-93. PubMed ID: 12547369
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. A novel approach to estimate trabecular bone anisotropy from stress tensors.
Hazrati Marangalou J; Ito K; van Rietbergen B
Biomech Model Mechanobiol; 2015 Jan; 14(1):39-48. PubMed ID: 24777672
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. An exclusion approach for addressing partial volume artifacts with quantititive computed tomography-based finite element modeling of the proximal tibia.
Kalajahi SMH; Nazemi SM; Johnston JD
Med Eng Phys; 2020 Feb; 76():95-100. PubMed ID: 31870545
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Constructing anisotropic finite element model of bone from computed tomography (CT).
Kazembakhshi S; Luo Y
Biomed Mater Eng; 2014; 24(6):2619-26. PubMed ID: 25226965
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Dependence of anisotropy of human lumbar vertebral trabecular bone on quantitative computed tomography-based apparent density.
Aiyangar AK; Vivanco J; Au AG; Anderson PA; Smith EL; Ploeg HL
J Biomech Eng; 2014 Sep; 136(9):091003. PubMed ID: 24825322
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. A novel registration-based methodology for prediction of trabecular bone fabric from clinical QCT: A comprehensive analysis.
Chandran V; Reyes M; Zysset P
PLoS One; 2017; 12(11):e0187874. PubMed ID: 29176881
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Quantifying trabecular bone material anisotropy and orientation using low resolution clinical CT images: A feasibility study.
Nazemi SM; Cooper DM; Johnston JD
Med Eng Phys; 2016 Sep; 38(9):978-87. PubMed ID: 27372175
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Effect of specimen-specific anisotropic material properties in quantitative computed tomography-based finite element analysis of the vertebra.
Unnikrishnan GU; Barest GD; Berry DB; Hussein AI; Morgan EF
J Biomech Eng; 2013 Oct; 135(10):101007-11. PubMed ID: 23942609
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Can CT image deblurring improve finite element predictions at the proximal femur?
Falcinelli C; Schileo E; Pakdel A; Whyne C; Cristofolini L; Taddei F
J Mech Behav Biomed Mater; 2016 Oct; 63():337-351. PubMed ID: 27450036
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Accounting for spatial variation of trabecular anisotropy with subject-specific finite element modeling moderately improves predictions of local subchondral bone stiffness at the proximal tibia.
Nazemi SM; Kalajahi SMH; Cooper DML; Kontulainen SA; Holdsworth DW; Masri BA; Wilson DR; Johnston JD
J Biomech; 2017 Jul; 59():101-108. PubMed ID: 28601243
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Comparison of proximal femur and vertebral body strength improvements in the FREEDOM trial using an alternative finite element methodology.
Zysset P; Pahr D; Engelke K; Genant HK; McClung MR; Kendler DL; Recknor C; Kinzl M; Schwiedrzik J; Museyko O; Wang A; Libanati C
Bone; 2015 Dec; 81():122-130. PubMed ID: 26141837
[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. Finite element modeling of the human thoracolumbar spine.
Liebschner MA; Kopperdahl DL; Rosenberg WS; Keaveny TM
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2003 Mar; 28(6):559-65. PubMed ID: 12642762
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Are DXA/aBMD and QCT/FEA Stiffness and Strength Estimates Sensitive to Sex and Age?
Rezaei A; Giambini H; Rossman T; Carlson KD; Yaszemski MJ; Lu L; Dragomir-Daescu D
Ann Biomed Eng; 2017 Dec; 45(12):2847-2856. PubMed ID: 28940110
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
