168 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32852064)
1. Stress shielding at the bone-implant interface: Influence of surface roughness and of the bone-implant contact ratio.
Raffa ML; Nguyen VH; Hernigou P; Flouzat-Lachaniette CH; Haiat G
J Orthop Res; 2021 Jun; 39(6):1174-1183. PubMed ID: 32852064
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Mechanical micromodeling of stress-shielding at the bone-implant interphase under shear loading.
Hériveaux Y; Le Cann S; Fraulob M; Vennat E; Nguyen VH; Haïat G
Med Biol Eng Comput; 2022 Nov; 60(11):3281-3293. PubMed ID: 36169903
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Micromechanical modeling of the contact stiffness of an osseointegrated bone-implant interface.
Raffa ML; Nguyen VH; Haiat G
Biomed Eng Online; 2019 Dec; 18(1):114. PubMed ID: 31796076
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Reflection of an ultrasonic wave on the bone-implant interface: A numerical study of the effect of the multiscale roughness.
Hériveaux Y; Nguyen VH; Haïat G
J Acoust Soc Am; 2018 Jul; 144(1):488. PubMed ID: 30075648
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Analytical modeling of the interaction of an ultrasonic wave with a rough bone-implant interface.
Hériveaux Y; Nguyen VH; Biwa S; Haïat G
Ultrasonics; 2020 Dec; 108():106223. PubMed ID: 32771811
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. The effect of implant thread design on stress distribution in anisotropic bone with different osseointegration conditions: a finite element analysis.
Mosavar A; Ziaei A; Kadkhodaei M
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2015; 30(6):1317-26. PubMed ID: 26478976
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Effect of porous orthopaedic implant material and structure on load sharing with simulated bone ingrowth: A finite element analysis comparing titanium and PEEK.
Carpenter RD; Klosterhoff BS; Torstrick FB; Foley KT; Burkus JK; Lee CSD; Gall K; Guldberg RE; Safranski DL
J Mech Behav Biomed Mater; 2018 Apr; 80():68-76. PubMed ID: 29414477
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. A modified Coulomb's law for the tangential debonding of osseointegrated implants.
Immel K; Duong TX; Nguyen VH; Haïat G; Sauer RA
Biomech Model Mechanobiol; 2020 Jun; 19(3):1091-1108. PubMed ID: 31916014
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. [Noncemented total hip arthroplasty: influence of extramedullary parameters on initial implant stability and on bone-implant interface stresses].
Ramaniraka NA; Rakotomanana LR; Rubin PJ; Leyvraz P
Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot; 2000 Oct; 86(6):590-7. PubMed ID: 11060433
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Magnitude and direction of mechanical stress at the osseointegrated interface of the microthread implant.
Hudieb MI; Wakabayashi N; Kasugai S
J Periodontol; 2011 Jul; 82(7):1061-70. PubMed ID: 21189091
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. The effect of primary stability on load transfer and bone remodelling within the uncemented resurfaced femur.
Pal B; Gupta S
Proc Inst Mech Eng H; 2011 Jun; 225(6):549-61. PubMed ID: 22034739
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Effects of implant surface roughness and stiffness of grafted bone on an immediately loaded maxillary implant: a 3D numerical analysis.
Huang HL; Fuh LJ; Hsu JT; Tu MG; Shen YW; Wu CL
J Oral Rehabil; 2008 Apr; 35(4):283-90. PubMed ID: 18321264
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Debonding of coin-shaped osseointegrated implants: Coupling of experimental and numerical approaches.
Hériveaux Y; Le Cann S; Immel K; Vennat E; Nguyen VH; Brailovski V; Karasinski P; Sauer RA; Haïat G
J Mech Behav Biomed Mater; 2023 May; 141():105787. PubMed ID: 36989873
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Modeling the debonding process of osseointegrated implants due to coupled adhesion and friction.
Immel K; Nguyen VH; Haïat G; Sauer RA
Biomech Model Mechanobiol; 2023 Feb; 22(1):133-158. PubMed ID: 36284076
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Influence of the stiffness of bone defect implants on the mechanical conditions at the interface--a finite element analysis with contact.
Simon U; Augat P; Ignatius A; Claes L
J Biomech; 2003 Aug; 36(8):1079-86. PubMed ID: 12831732
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The use of finite element analysis to model bone-implant contact with basal implants.
Ihde S; Goldmann T; Himmlova L; Aleksic Z
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2008 Jul; 106(1):39-48. PubMed ID: 18439855
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. A review of improved fixation methods for dental implants. Part II: biomechanical integrity at bone-implant interface.
Shibata Y; Tanimoto Y; Maruyama N; Nagakura M
J Prosthodont Res; 2015 Apr; 59(2):84-95. PubMed ID: 25797023
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. A stochastic micro to macro mechanical model for the evolution of bone-implant interface stiffness.
Xie J; Rittel D; Shemtov-Yona K; Shah FA; Palmquist A
Acta Biomater; 2021 Sep; 131():415-423. PubMed ID: 34129958
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
