These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

70 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 6692631)

  • 1. Approaches to the interface problem in total joint arthroplasty.
    Walker PS; Onchi K; Kurosawa H; Rodger RF
    Clin Orthop Relat Res; 1984; (182):99-108. PubMed ID: 6692631
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. An investigation of a compliant interface for press-fit joint replacement.
    Walker PS; Rodger RF; Miegel RE; Schiller AL; Deland JT; Robertson DD
    J Orthop Res; 1990 May; 8(3):453-63. PubMed ID: 2324862
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The influence of tibial component intramedullary stems and implant-cortex contact on the strain distribution of the proximal tibia following total knee arthroplasty. An in vitro study.
    Bourne RB; Finlay JB
    Clin Orthop Relat Res; 1986 Jul; (208):95-9. PubMed ID: 3720148
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. A mobile-bearing knee prosthesis can reduce strain at the proximal tibia.
    Bottlang M; Erne OK; Lacatusu E; Sommers MB; Kessler O
    Clin Orthop Relat Res; 2006 Jun; 447():105-11. PubMed ID: 16456313
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Does titanium surface treatment influence the bone-implant interface? SEM and histomorphometry in a 6-month sheep study.
    Huré G; Donath K; Lesourd M; Chappard D; Baslé MF
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 1996; 11(4):506-11. PubMed ID: 8803346
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Osseointegration on metallic implant surfaces: effects of microgeometry and growth factor treatment.
    Frenkel SR; Simon J; Alexander H; Dennis M; Ricci JL
    J Biomed Mater Res; 2002; 63(6):706-13. PubMed ID: 12418014
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. An implantable telemetry device to measure intra-articular tibial forces.
    D'Lima DD; Townsend CP; Arms SW; Morris BA; Colwell CW
    J Biomech; 2005 Feb; 38(2):299-304. PubMed ID: 15598457
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Porous-coated knee arthroplasty. A case report concerning bone ingrowth.
    Hainau B; Reimann I; Dorph S; Rechnagel K; Henschel A; Kragh F
    Clin Orthop Relat Res; 1989 Feb; (239):178-84. PubMed ID: 2912618
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. A new technique to measure the dynamic contact pressures on the Tibial Plateau.
    Cottrell JM; Scholten P; Wanich T; Warren RF; Wright TM; Maher SA
    J Biomech; 2008 Jul; 41(10):2324-9. PubMed ID: 18539286
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Dynamic stress response of the implant/cement interface: an axisymmetric analysis of a knee tibial component.
    Ahmed AM; Tissakht M; Shrivastava SC; Chan K
    J Orthop Res; 1990 May; 8(3):435-47. PubMed ID: 2324861
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. A compliant interface for total knee arthroplasty.
    Miegel RE; Walker PS; Nelson PC; Inadomi J; Needelman L; Maxine M
    J Orthop Res; 1986; 4(4):486-93. PubMed ID: 3783302
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Bone ingrowth simulation for a concept glenoid component design.
    Andreykiv A; Prendergast PJ; van Keulen F; Swieszkowski W; Rozing PM
    J Biomech; 2005 May; 38(5):1023-33. PubMed ID: 15797584
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. [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]  

  • 14. The influence of Young's modulus of loaded implants on bone remodeling: an experimental and numerical study in the goat knee.
    Stoppie N; Van Oosterwyck H; Jansen J; Wolke J; Wevers M; Naert I
    J Biomed Mater Res A; 2009 Sep; 90(3):792-803. PubMed ID: 18615463
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Mechanical bond strength of the cement-tibial component interface in total knee arthroplasty.
    Pittman GT; Peters CL; Hines JL; Bachus KN
    J Arthroplasty; 2006 Sep; 21(6):883-8. PubMed ID: 16950044
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Tibiofemoral force following total knee arthroplasty: comparison of four prosthesis designs in vitro.
    Nicholls RL; Schirm AC; Jeffcote BO; Kuster MS
    J Orthop Res; 2007 Nov; 25(11):1506-12. PubMed ID: 17568418
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A multiaxial force-sensing implantable tibial prosthesis.
    Kirking B; Krevolin J; Townsend C; Colwell CW; D'Lima DD
    J Biomech; 2006; 39(9):1744-51. PubMed ID: 16023656
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Influence of an interpositional spacer on the behaviour of the tibiofemoral joint: a finite element study.
    Checa S; Taylor M; New A
    Clin Biomech (Bristol); 2008 Oct; 23(8):1044-52. PubMed ID: 18499317
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. A histomorphometric and histologic analysis of the implant interface in five successful, autopsy-retrieved, noncemented porous-coated knee arthroplasties.
    Vigorita VJ; Minkowitz B; Dichiara JF; Higham PA
    Clin Orthop Relat Res; 1993 Aug; (293):211-8. PubMed ID: 8339483
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A parametric analysis of fixation post shape in tibial knee prostheses.
    Au AG; Liggins AB; Raso VJ; Amirfazli A
    Med Eng Phys; 2005 Mar; 27(2):123-34. PubMed ID: 15642508
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 4.