2017
DOI: 10.1007/s40846-017-0267-8
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Introduction of Maximum Stress Parameter for the Evaluation of Stress Shielding Around Orthopedic Screws in the Presence of Bone Remodeling Process

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

1
2
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 41 publications
1
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The STPs values of all group length show the same trends where the highest STP is at the finer pitch size before STPs values start to decrease as the size of pitch increased except for group length of 6-8 mm. The result shown similar pattern as that of Hosseinitabatabaei et al [34], where simulated 4 years healing process to observe the effect of maximum stress parameter and STP by screw pitch from 1.5 mm to 2.5 mm and the results shows that by decreasing screw pitch size would improve the screw performance and reduce the effects of stress shielding. However, at the group length of 6-8 mm, the STPs values start to increase simultaneously as the size of pitch increased.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 82%
“…The STPs values of all group length show the same trends where the highest STP is at the finer pitch size before STPs values start to decrease as the size of pitch increased except for group length of 6-8 mm. The result shown similar pattern as that of Hosseinitabatabaei et al [34], where simulated 4 years healing process to observe the effect of maximum stress parameter and STP by screw pitch from 1.5 mm to 2.5 mm and the results shows that by decreasing screw pitch size would improve the screw performance and reduce the effects of stress shielding. However, at the group length of 6-8 mm, the STPs values start to increase simultaneously as the size of pitch increased.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 82%
“…The problems with these conventional materials are their least biodegradability, biological inertness, similarity in properties to the bone, long-term stability, wear, and corrosion resistance [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]. The other issues related to these implant materials are stress shielding, secondary infections, metal ion release, etc [18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25]. Therefore, in most cases, multiple revisions are required in case of failure of implants.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These materials have the potential to replace non-degradable implants by gradually degrading over time, eliminating the need for additional surgical interventions for removal [ [1] , [2] , [3] , [4] , [5] ]. One of the significant issues with conventional implant materials, such as titanium alloys and alumina-zirconia composites, is the modulus mismatch with the surrounding bone [ [6] , [7] , [8] , [9] , [10] , [11] , [12] , [13] , [14] ]. The large difference in mechanical properties between the implant and the bone can lead to stress shielding, a phenomenon where the implant bears most of the load, resulting in bone resorption and implant loosening [ [15] , [16] , [17] , [18] , [19] , [20] ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%