ReviewFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2024
Finite element analysis and
Review in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Preparation and characterization of self-healing nanocomposite hydrogels based on chitosan/polyethylene glycol/bacterial nanocellulose for wound dressing applications.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Graphene oxide coating on two-dimensional glass substrates and three-dimensional zirconia scaffolds for bone tissue regeneration.Materials today. Bio · 2026Article
- Review
- Mechanobiology in Action: Biomaterials, Devices, and the Cellular Machinery of Force Sensing.Biomolecules · 2025Review
- Innovative 3D printing technologies and advanced materials revolutionizing orthopedic surgery: current applications and future directions.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bone structures facilitate the regeneration and repair of bone tissue in regions where it has been damaged or destroyed, either temporarily or permanently. Therefore, the bone's fatigue strength and durability are crucial to its efficacy and longevity. Several variables, such as the construct's material qualities, design, and production procedure, loading and unloading cycles, and physiological conditions influence the endurance life of bone constructs. Metals, ceramics, and polymers are all routinely utilized to create bone substitutes, and each of these materials has unique features that might affect the fatigue strength and endurance life of the final product. The mechanical performance and capacity to promote bone tissue regeneration may be affected by the scaffold's design, porosity, and pore size. Researchers employ mechanical testing under cyclic loading circumstances as one example of an experimental approach used to assess bone construction endurance. These analyses can give us important information about the stress-strain behavior, resistance to multiple loading cycles, and fatigue strength of the new structure. Predicting the endurance life of the developed construct may also be possible with the use of simulations and numerical analyses. Hence, in order to create reliable and efficient constructs for bone tissue engineering, it is crucial to understand their fatigue strength and durability. The purpose of this study is to analyze the effective parameters for fatigue strength of bone structures and to gather the models and evaluations utilized in endurance life assessments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.