1993
DOI: 10.1016/0141-5425(93)90066-8
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Validation of an automated method of three-dimensional finite element modelling of bone

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

7
77
0
2

Year Published

2004
2004
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 148 publications
(90 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
7
77
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…However, the verification of surface strain by Keyak et al 44 supported the validity of the internal strain and stress predictions in the proximal femur, because surface strain is intimately related to strain inside the bone. 45 In the present study conventional Gruen zones were used; however, there is a justification for higher resolution assessment of DIC and clinical DXA data over smaller regions, such as the 4mm x 4mm virtual strain gauge zones used in this study. Gruen zones have been adopted for assessment of periprosthetic bone adaptation, but in vitro (FE, DIC) and in vivo (DXA) techniques offer more information through their higher spatial resolution.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the verification of surface strain by Keyak et al 44 supported the validity of the internal strain and stress predictions in the proximal femur, because surface strain is intimately related to strain inside the bone. 45 In the present study conventional Gruen zones were used; however, there is a justification for higher resolution assessment of DIC and clinical DXA data over smaller regions, such as the 4mm x 4mm virtual strain gauge zones used in this study. Gruen zones have been adopted for assessment of periprosthetic bone adaptation, but in vitro (FE, DIC) and in vivo (DXA) techniques offer more information through their higher spatial resolution.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this study, a fresh validated FEM has permitted predictions of the biomechanical response of the mandible affected by the surgical BTDO process. The small differences in strains between the experimental test and the FEM could be due to practical difficulties attaching the strain gauges properly to the cortical bone surface, and critical electrical outcomes due to thermal effects during the recording process [42]. It is also important to consider the initial yield of the mandible and the support under the loading effect of the universal testing machine, and any possible slippage of the machine stick on the enamel of the tooth.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Before being used to derive clinical indications, a model needs to be verified and validated (Keyak et al 1993;Dalstra et al 1995;Lengsfeld et al 1998;GomezBenito et al 2005;Viceconti et al 2005). The term verification is commonly used to indicate the process ensuring that the numerical model accurately predicts the results of the theoretical model it is based on, which means assessing its numerical accuracy.…”
Section: Organ Level: the Bone Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Subsequently, the sensitivity of the model to the uncertainties in modelling the geometry and the material properties of a human femur from the CT data needs to be assessed (Keyak et al 1993;Lengsfeld et al 1998;Bayraktar et al 2004;Taddei et al 2006a). A sensitivity analysis, based on a Monte Carlo method, was performed on three femur models generated from the in vivo CT datasets (Taddei et al 2006c).…”
Section: Organ Level: the Bone Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%