120 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28446031)
1. Influences of geometrical and mechanical properties of bone tissues in mandible behaviour - experimental and numerical predictions.
Ramos A; Nyashin Y; Mesnard M
Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin; 2017 Jul; 20(9):1004-1014. PubMed ID: 28446031
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. The stock alloplastic temporomandibular joint implant can influence the behavior of the opposite native joint: A numerical study.
Ramos AM; Mesnard M
J Craniomaxillofac Surg; 2015 Oct; 43(8):1384-91. PubMed ID: 26231883
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. The importance of cortical bone orthotropicity, maximum stiffness direction and thickness on the reliability of mandible numerical models.
Apicella D; Aversa R; Ferro F; Ianniello D; Perillo L; Apicella A
J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater; 2010 Apr; 93(1):150-63. PubMed ID: 20119941
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. Biomechanical study of mandible bone supporting a four-implant retained bridge: finite element analysis of the influence of bone anisotropy and foodstuff position.
Bonnet AS; Postaire M; Lipinski P
Med Eng Phys; 2009 Sep; 31(7):806-15. PubMed ID: 19395303
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Christensen vs Biomet Microfixation alloplastic TMJ implant: Are there improvements? A numerical study.
Ramos A; Mesnard M
J Craniomaxillofac Surg; 2015 Oct; 43(8):1398-403. PubMed ID: 26300296
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Experimental and numerical predictions of Biomet(®) alloplastic implant in a cadaveric mandibular ramus.
Mesnard M; Ramos A
J Craniomaxillofac Surg; 2016 May; 44(5):608-15. PubMed ID: 27017105
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Numerical study of the influence of material parameters on the mechanical behaviour of a rehabilitated edentulous mandible.
Favot LM; Berry-Kromer V; Haboussi M; Thiebaud F; Ben Zineb T
J Dent; 2014 Mar; 42(3):287-97. PubMed ID: 24321295
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Experimental and finite element study of a human mandible.
Vollmer D; Meyer U; Joos U; Vègh A; Piffko J
J Craniomaxillofac Surg; 2000 Apr; 28(2):91-6. PubMed ID: 10958421
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Study and characterization of the crest module design: A 3D finite element analysis.
Costa C; Peixinho N; Silva JP; Carvalho S
J Prosthet Dent; 2015 Jun; 113(6):541-7. PubMed ID: 25794909
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Strain in the ostrich mandible during simulated pecking and validation of specimen-specific finite element models.
Rayfield EJ
J Anat; 2011 Jan; 218(1):47-58. PubMed ID: 20846282
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Theoretical assessment of an intramedullary condylar component versus screw fixation for the condylar component of a hemiarthroplasty alloplastic TMJ replacement system.
Ramos A; Mesnard M; Relvas C; Completo A; Simões JA
J Craniomaxillofac Surg; 2014 Mar; 42(2):169-74. PubMed ID: 23684530
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Finite element analysis of stresses in the maxillary and mandibular dental arches and TMJ articular discs during clenching into maximum intercuspation, anterior and unilateral posterior occlusion.
Pileicikiene G; Surna A; Barauskas R; Surna R; Basevicius A
Stomatologija; 2007; 9(4):121-8. PubMed ID: 18303277
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Influence of bone and dental implant parameters on stress distribution in the mandible: a finite element study.
Guan H; van Staden R; Loo YC; Johnson N; Ivanovski S; Meredith N
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2009; 24(5):866-76. PubMed ID: 19865627
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Ex-vivo and in vitro validation of an innovative mandibular condyle implant concept.
Ramos A; Gonzalez-Perez LM; Infante-Cossio P; Mesnard M
J Craniomaxillofac Surg; 2019 Jan; 47(1):112-119. PubMed ID: 30545800
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Evaluation of experimental and finite element models of synthetic and cadaveric femora for pre-clinical design-analysis.
McNamara BP; Cristofolini L; Toni A; Taylor D
Clin Mater; 1994; 17(3):131-40. PubMed ID: 10150600
[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. Probabilistic analysis of peri-implant strain predictions as influenced by uncertainties in bone properties and occlusal forces.
Petrie CS; Williams JL
Clin Oral Implants Res; 2007 Oct; 18(5):611-9. PubMed ID: 17590159
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Influence of clinically relevant factors on the immediate biomechanical surrounding for a series of dental implant designs.
Shunmugasamy VC; Gupta N; Pessoa RS; Janal MN; Coelho PG
J Biomech Eng; 2011 Mar; 133(3):031005. PubMed ID: 21303181
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Finite-element analysis of 3 situations of trauma in the human edentulous mandible.
Santos LS; Rossi AC; Freire AR; Matoso RI; Caria PH; Prado FB
J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2015 Apr; 73(4):683-91. PubMed ID: 25577458
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
