Patient‐specific finite element models of the human mandible: Lack of consensus on current set‐ups
The use of finite element analysis (FEA) has increased rapidly over the last decennia and has become a popular tool to design implants, osteosynthesis plates and prostheses. With increasing computer capacity and the availability of software applications, it has become easier to employ the FEA. Howev...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Oral diseases 2021-01, Vol.27 (1), p.42-51 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 51 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 42 |
| container_title | Oral diseases |
| container_volume | 27 |
| creator | Merema, Bram Barteld Jan Kraeima, Joep Glas, Haye H. Spijkervet, Fred K. L. Witjes, Max J. H. |
| description | The use of finite element analysis (FEA) has increased rapidly over the last decennia and has become a popular tool to design implants, osteosynthesis plates and prostheses. With increasing computer capacity and the availability of software applications, it has become easier to employ the FEA. However, there seems to be no consensus on the input variables that should be applied to representative FEA models of the human mandible. This review aims to find a consensus on how to define the representative input factors for a FEA model of the human mandible. A literature search carried out in the PubMed and Embase database resulted in 137 matches. Seven papers were included in this current study. Within the search results, only a few FEA models had been validated. The material properties and FEA approaches varied considerably, and the available validations are not strong enough for a general consensus. Further validations are required, preferably using the same measuring workflow to obtain insight into the broad array of mandibular variations. A lot of work is still required to establish validated FEA settings and to prevent assumptions when it comes to FEA applications. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1111/odi.13381 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7818111</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2399239304</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4431-59dd28092885e90a9c7dbbd3acded4d0339928bfad912b16091e3d7d54dd521e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kc9KHTEYxUOpVKtd-AIl0E27GM2fGWfSRaFoq8IFXSh0FzLJN97YmeSazFTc9RH6jH2SfuO10goGQj44vxxOcgjZ5WyP49qPzu9xKRv-gmzxA8YL1ojqJc6yKotKyG-b5HXO14zxWknximxKIWtRlc0W6c7N6CGMv3_-yiuwvvOWdj74ESj0MKBCh-igzzR2dFwCXU6DCRS3820PH-nC2O-zZmPIEPKEYKB2Smm-mmE2nlZ5h2x0ps_w5uHcJpdfv1wcnhSLs-PTw8-Lwpal5EWlnBMNU6JpKlDMKFu7tnXSWAeudExKhVrbGae4aPGpioN0tatK5yqB8zb5tPZdTe0AzmKIZHq9Sn4w6U5H4_X_SvBLfRV_6LrhDX4lGrx_MEjxZoI86sFnC31vAsQpazEnkEqyEtF3T9DrOKWAz9OirLmqZS0PkPqwpmyKOSfoHsNwpuf2NLan79tD9u2_6R_Jv3UhsL8Gbn0Pd8876bOj07XlH-8Ep0w</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2471973736</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Patient‐specific finite element models of the human mandible: Lack of consensus on current set‐ups</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library All Journals</source><creator>Merema, Bram Barteld Jan ; Kraeima, Joep ; Glas, Haye H. ; Spijkervet, Fred K. L. ; Witjes, Max J. H.</creator><creatorcontrib>Merema, Bram Barteld Jan ; Kraeima, Joep ; Glas, Haye H. ; Spijkervet, Fred K. L. ; Witjes, Max J. H.</creatorcontrib><description>The use of finite element analysis (FEA) has increased rapidly over the last decennia and has become a popular tool to design implants, osteosynthesis plates and prostheses. With increasing computer capacity and the availability of software applications, it has become easier to employ the FEA. However, there seems to be no consensus on the input variables that should be applied to representative FEA models of the human mandible. This review aims to find a consensus on how to define the representative input factors for a FEA model of the human mandible. A literature search carried out in the PubMed and Embase database resulted in 137 matches. Seven papers were included in this current study. Within the search results, only a few FEA models had been validated. The material properties and FEA approaches varied considerably, and the available validations are not strong enough for a general consensus. Further validations are required, preferably using the same measuring workflow to obtain insight into the broad array of mandibular variations. A lot of work is still required to establish validated FEA settings and to prevent assumptions when it comes to FEA applications.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1354-523X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1601-0825</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/odi.13381</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32372548</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Denmark: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>Biomechanical Phenomena ; Bone and Hard Tissues ; Bone implants ; CAD‐CAM ; Computer Simulation ; Consensus ; Dentistry ; Finite Element Analysis ; Finite element method ; Humans ; in vitro validation ; Mandible ; mandibular reconstruction ; Mathematical models ; Osteosynthesis ; patient‐specific modelling ; prosthesis and implants ; Prosthetics ; Review ; Stress, Mechanical</subject><ispartof>Oral diseases, 2021-01, Vol.27 (1), p.42-51</ispartof><rights>2020 The Authors. published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.</rights><rights>2020 The Authors. Oral Diseases published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.</rights><rights>2020. This article is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4431-59dd28092885e90a9c7dbbd3acded4d0339928bfad912b16091e3d7d54dd521e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4431-59dd28092885e90a9c7dbbd3acded4d0339928bfad912b16091e3d7d54dd521e3</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-8527-960X ; 0000-0003-0200-2344 ; 0000-0003-0994-3104</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fodi.13381$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fodi.13381$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,1417,27924,27925,45574,45575</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32372548$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Merema, Bram Barteld Jan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kraeima, Joep</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Glas, Haye H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Spijkervet, Fred K. L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Witjes, Max J. H.</creatorcontrib><title>Patient‐specific finite element models of the human mandible: Lack of consensus on current set‐ups</title><title>Oral diseases</title><addtitle>Oral Dis</addtitle><description>The use of finite element analysis (FEA) has increased rapidly over the last decennia and has become a popular tool to design implants, osteosynthesis plates and prostheses. With increasing computer capacity and the availability of software applications, it has become easier to employ the FEA. However, there seems to be no consensus on the input variables that should be applied to representative FEA models of the human mandible. This review aims to find a consensus on how to define the representative input factors for a FEA model of the human mandible. A literature search carried out in the PubMed and Embase database resulted in 137 matches. Seven papers were included in this current study. Within the search results, only a few FEA models had been validated. The material properties and FEA approaches varied considerably, and the available validations are not strong enough for a general consensus. Further validations are required, preferably using the same measuring workflow to obtain insight into the broad array of mandibular variations. A lot of work is still required to establish validated FEA settings and to prevent assumptions when it comes to FEA applications.</description><subject>Biomechanical Phenomena</subject><subject>Bone and Hard Tissues</subject><subject>Bone implants</subject><subject>CAD‐CAM</subject><subject>Computer Simulation</subject><subject>Consensus</subject><subject>Dentistry</subject><subject>Finite Element Analysis</subject><subject>Finite element method</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>in vitro validation</subject><subject>Mandible</subject><subject>mandibular reconstruction</subject><subject>Mathematical models</subject><subject>Osteosynthesis</subject><subject>patient‐specific modelling</subject><subject>prosthesis and implants</subject><subject>Prosthetics</subject><subject>Review</subject><subject>Stress, Mechanical</subject><issn>1354-523X</issn><issn>1601-0825</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>WIN</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kc9KHTEYxUOpVKtd-AIl0E27GM2fGWfSRaFoq8IFXSh0FzLJN97YmeSazFTc9RH6jH2SfuO10goGQj44vxxOcgjZ5WyP49qPzu9xKRv-gmzxA8YL1ojqJc6yKotKyG-b5HXO14zxWknximxKIWtRlc0W6c7N6CGMv3_-yiuwvvOWdj74ESj0MKBCh-igzzR2dFwCXU6DCRS3820PH-nC2O-zZmPIEPKEYKB2Smm-mmE2nlZ5h2x0ps_w5uHcJpdfv1wcnhSLs-PTw8-Lwpal5EWlnBMNU6JpKlDMKFu7tnXSWAeudExKhVrbGae4aPGpioN0tatK5yqB8zb5tPZdTe0AzmKIZHq9Sn4w6U5H4_X_SvBLfRV_6LrhDX4lGrx_MEjxZoI86sFnC31vAsQpazEnkEqyEtF3T9DrOKWAz9OirLmqZS0PkPqwpmyKOSfoHsNwpuf2NLan79tD9u2_6R_Jv3UhsL8Gbn0Pd8876bOj07XlH-8Ep0w</recordid><startdate>202101</startdate><enddate>202101</enddate><creator>Merema, Bram Barteld Jan</creator><creator>Kraeima, Joep</creator><creator>Glas, Haye H.</creator><creator>Spijkervet, Fred K. L.</creator><creator>Witjes, Max J. H.</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><general>John Wiley and Sons Inc</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>WIN</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8527-960X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0200-2344</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0994-3104</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202101</creationdate><title>Patient‐specific finite element models of the human mandible: Lack of consensus on current set‐ups</title><author>Merema, Bram Barteld Jan ; Kraeima, Joep ; Glas, Haye H. ; Spijkervet, Fred K. L. ; Witjes, Max J. H.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4431-59dd28092885e90a9c7dbbd3acded4d0339928bfad912b16091e3d7d54dd521e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Biomechanical Phenomena</topic><topic>Bone and Hard Tissues</topic><topic>Bone implants</topic><topic>CAD‐CAM</topic><topic>Computer Simulation</topic><topic>Consensus</topic><topic>Dentistry</topic><topic>Finite Element Analysis</topic><topic>Finite element method</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>in vitro validation</topic><topic>Mandible</topic><topic>mandibular reconstruction</topic><topic>Mathematical models</topic><topic>Osteosynthesis</topic><topic>patient‐specific modelling</topic><topic>prosthesis and implants</topic><topic>Prosthetics</topic><topic>Review</topic><topic>Stress, Mechanical</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Merema, Bram Barteld Jan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kraeima, Joep</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Glas, Haye H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Spijkervet, Fred K. L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Witjes, Max J. H.</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley-Blackwell Open Access Titles</collection><collection>Wiley Free Content</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Oral diseases</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Merema, Bram Barteld Jan</au><au>Kraeima, Joep</au><au>Glas, Haye H.</au><au>Spijkervet, Fred K. L.</au><au>Witjes, Max J. H.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Patient‐specific finite element models of the human mandible: Lack of consensus on current set‐ups</atitle><jtitle>Oral diseases</jtitle><addtitle>Oral Dis</addtitle><date>2021-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>27</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>42</spage><epage>51</epage><pages>42-51</pages><issn>1354-523X</issn><eissn>1601-0825</eissn><abstract>The use of finite element analysis (FEA) has increased rapidly over the last decennia and has become a popular tool to design implants, osteosynthesis plates and prostheses. With increasing computer capacity and the availability of software applications, it has become easier to employ the FEA. However, there seems to be no consensus on the input variables that should be applied to representative FEA models of the human mandible. This review aims to find a consensus on how to define the representative input factors for a FEA model of the human mandible. A literature search carried out in the PubMed and Embase database resulted in 137 matches. Seven papers were included in this current study. Within the search results, only a few FEA models had been validated. The material properties and FEA approaches varied considerably, and the available validations are not strong enough for a general consensus. Further validations are required, preferably using the same measuring workflow to obtain insight into the broad array of mandibular variations. A lot of work is still required to establish validated FEA settings and to prevent assumptions when it comes to FEA applications.</abstract><cop>Denmark</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><pmid>32372548</pmid><doi>10.1111/odi.13381</doi><tpages>10</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8527-960X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0200-2344</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0994-3104</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1354-523X |
| ispartof | Oral diseases, 2021-01, Vol.27 (1), p.42-51 |
| issn | 1354-523X 1601-0825 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7818111 |
| source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library All Journals |
| subjects | Biomechanical Phenomena Bone and Hard Tissues Bone implants CAD‐CAM Computer Simulation Consensus Dentistry Finite Element Analysis Finite element method Humans in vitro validation Mandible mandibular reconstruction Mathematical models Osteosynthesis patient‐specific modelling prosthesis and implants Prosthetics Review Stress, Mechanical |
| title | Patient‐specific finite element models of the human mandible: Lack of consensus on current set‐ups |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-08T01%3A59%3A34IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Patient%E2%80%90specific%20finite%20element%20models%20of%20the%20human%20mandible:%20Lack%20of%20consensus%20on%20current%20set%E2%80%90ups&rft.jtitle=Oral%20diseases&rft.au=Merema,%20Bram%20Barteld%20Jan&rft.date=2021-01&rft.volume=27&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=42&rft.epage=51&rft.pages=42-51&rft.issn=1354-523X&rft.eissn=1601-0825&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/odi.13381&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2399239304%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2471973736&rft_id=info:pmid/32372548&rfr_iscdi=true |