↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Biomechanical assessment of fixation methods for segmental mandible reconstruction with fibula in the polyurethane model
Published in
Microsurgery, April 2016
DOI 10.1002/micr.30052
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

A variety of plating techniques are employed by microsurgeons to provide rigid fixation for vascularized bone constructs of the mandible. The aim of this study was to biomechanically compare three commonly utilized plating techniques for rigid fixation of fibula bone flaps in reconstructing lateral segmental mandibular defects. Polyurethane mandibles with 3-cm segmental defects were reconstructed using polyurethane fibula models. Three fixation techniques were compared (n = 5 models per group): Group 1 used two 2.0-mm miniplates at each osteotomy site, Group 2 used a single 2.3-mm plate, and Group 3 used a single 2.7-mm plate. Biomechanical testing of maximum force and displacement at failure for each plating technique was assessed and statistical comparison performed. The average displacement for Group 1 was 14.08 ± 1.42 mm, Group 2 was 5.79 ± 0.89 mm, and Group 3 was 6.03 ± 1.59 mm. Group 1 had significantly greater (P < 0.05) displacement when compared with Group 2 and 3. Analysis of variance demonstrated the three groups varied significantly in mean displacement (0 < 0.01). The average force before failure for Group 1 was 616.4 ± 33.83N, Group 2 was 737.8 ± 72.57N, and Group 3 was 681.0 ± 67.98N. Group 2 withstood significantly greater force than Group 1 (P < 0.05), and withstood greater force than Group 3, although the difference was not significant. Analysis of variance showed the three groups varied significantly in mean force at failure (P < 0.05). Reconstruction using a single 2.3-mm plate provided the best rigid fixation for lateral segmental defects of the mandible. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Microsurgery, 2016.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 3 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 13%
Unspecified 1 4%
Lecturer 1 4%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 4%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 11 48%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 30%
Unspecified 1 4%
Engineering 1 4%
Unknown 14 61%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 April 2016.
All research outputs
#21,938,746
of 24,477,448 outputs
Outputs from Microsurgery
#389
of 496 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#263,858
of 305,975 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Microsurgery
#4
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,477,448 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 496 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 305,975 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.