Finite element analysis of human skull bone adaptation to mechanical loading

References

• Arramon YP, Nauman EA. 2001. The intrinsic permeability of cancellous bone. In: Cowin S, editor. Bone mechanics. CRC Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Carter D, Hayes WC. 1977. The compressive behavior of bone as a two-phase porous structure. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 59(7):954–962.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carter DR, Orr TE, Fyhrie DP. 1989. Relationships between loading history and femoral cancellous bone architecture. J Biomech. 22:231–244.
   Google Scholar
• Chandran V, Maquer G, Gerig T, Zysset P, Reyes M. 2019. Supervised learning for bone shape and cortical thickness estimation from CT images for finite element analysis. Med Image Anal. 52:42–55.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheng YC, Lin DH, Jiang CP, Lin YM. 2017. Dental implant customization using numerical optimization design and 3-dimensional printing fabrication of zirconia ceramic. Int J Numer Method Biomed Eng. 33.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cowin SC, Hegedus DH. 1976. Bone remodeling I: theory of adaptive elasticity. J Elast. 6:313–326.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dattatrey M, Tiwari AK, Ghoshal B, Singh J. 2019. Predicting bone modeling parameters in response to mechanical loading. IEEE Access. 7:122561–122572.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Du Plessis A, Broeckhoven C, Yadroitsava I, Yadroitsev I, Hands CH, Kunju R, Bhate D. 2019. Beautiful and functional: a review of biomimetic design in additive manufacturing. Addit Manuf 27:408–427.
   Google Scholar
• Gerami A, Dadgar S, Rakhshan V, Jannati P, Sobouti F. 2016. Displacement and force distribution of splinted and tilted mandibular anterior teeth under occlusal loads: an in silico 3D finite element analysis. Prog Orthod. 17(1):16.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hedayati Z, Shomali M. 2016. Maxillary anterior en masse retraction using different antero-posterior position of mini screw: a 3D finite element study. Prog Orthod. 17(1):31.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hourfar J, Kinzinger GSM, Ludwig B, Spindler J, Lisson JA. 2016. Differenzialtherapeutische Effekte zweier unterschiedlich verankerter Gaumennahterweiterungsapparaturen: Eine retrospektive kephalometrische Studie. J Orofac Orthop. 77(5):314–324.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hu C, Qin Q-H. 2020. Bone remodeling and biological effects of mechanical stimulus. AIMS Bioeng. 7(1):12–28.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huiskes R, Weinans H, Grootenboer HJ, Dalstra M, Fudula B, Slooff TJ. 1987. Adaptive bone-remodeling theory applied to prosthetic-design analysis. J Biomech. 20:1135–1150.
   Google Scholar
• Jain V, Shyagali TR, Kambalyal P, Rajpara Y, Doshi J. 2017. Comparison and evaluation of stresses generated by rapid maxillary expansion and the implant-supported rapid maxillary expansion on the craniofacial structures using finite element method of stress analysis. Prog Orthod. 18:3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Javaheri B, Razi H, Gohin S, Wylie S, Chang Y-M, Salmon P, Lee PD, Pitsillides AA. 2020. Lasting organ-level bone mechanoadaptation is unrelated to local strain. Sci Adv. 6(10):eaax8301.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jetté B, Brailovski V, Simoneau C, Dumas M, Terriault P. 2018. Development and in vitro validation of a simplified numerical model for the design of a biomimetic femoral stem. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 77:539–550.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kameo Y, Miya Y, Hayashi M, Nakashima T, Adachi T. 2020. In silico experiments of bone remodeling explore metabolic diseases and their drug treatment. Sci Adv. 6(10):eaax0938.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kawai M, Mödder UI, Khosla S, Rosen CJ. 2011. Emerging therapeutic opportunities for skeletal restoration. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 10:141–156.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kosmač T, Oblak C, Jevnikar P, Funduk N, Marion L. 1999. The effect of surface grinding and sandblasting on flexural strength and reliability of Y-TZP zirconia ceramic. Dent Mater. 15:426–433.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kumar A, Ghafoor H, Khanam A. 2016. A comparison of three-dimensional stress distribution and displacement of naso-maxillary complex on application of forces using quad-helix and nickel titanium palatal expander 2 (NPE2): a FEM study. Prog Orthod. 17(1):17.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Li Z, Betts D, Kuhn G, Schirmer M, Müller R, Ruffoni D. 2019. Mechanical regulation of bone formation and resorption around implants in a mouse model of osteopenic bone. J R Soc Interface. 16(152):20180667.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacGinnis M, Chu H, Youssef G, Wu KW, Machado AW, Moon W. 2014. The effects of micro-implant assisted rapid palatal expansion (MARPE) on the nasomaxillary complex–a finite element method (FEM) analysis. Prog Orthod. 15:52.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Maruo IT, Maruo H, Saga AY, de Oliveira DD, Argenta MA, Tanaka OM. 2016. Tridimensional finite element analysis of teeth movement induced by different headgear forces. Prog Orthod. 17:18.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maspero C, Galbiati G, Giannini L, Farronato G. 2015. Sagittal and vertical effects of transverse sagittal maxillary expander (TSME) in three different malocclusion groups. Prog Orthod. 16:6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moon W, Wu KW, MacGinnis M, Sung J, Chu H, Youssef G, Machado A. 2015. The efficacy of maxillary protraction protocols with the micro-implant-assisted rapid palatal expander (MARPE) and the novel N2 mini-implant-a finite element study. Prog Orthod. 16:16.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nakashima T, Hayashi M, Takayanagi H. 2012. New insights into osteoclastogenic signaling mechanisms. Trends Endocrinol Metab. 23:582–590.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ngan P, Moon W. 2015. Evolution of Class III treatment in orthodontics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 148:22–36.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Querol LB, Büchler P, Rueckert D, Nolte LP, González, Ballester MÁ. 2006. Statistical finite element model for bone shape and biomechanical properties. In: International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, pp. 405–411. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Rice JC, Cowin SC, Bowman JA. 1988. On the dependence of the elasticity and strength of cancellous bone on apparent density. J Biomech. 21:155–168.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scheuren AC, Vallaster P, Kuhn GA, Paul GR, Malhotra A, Kameo Y, Müller R. 2020. Mechano-regulation of bone adaptation is controlled by the local in vivo environment and logarithmically dependent on loading frequency. Front Bioeng Biotechnol.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singaraju GS, Chembeti D, Mandava P, Reddy VK, Shetty SK, George SA. 2015. A comparative study of three types of rapid maxillary expansion devices in surgically assisted maxillary expansion: a finite element study. J Int Oral Heal. 7:40–46.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tanaka OM, Saga AY, Pithon MM, Argenta MA. 2016. Stresses in the midpalatal suture in the maxillary protraction therapy: a 3D finite element analysis. Prog Orthod. 17:8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang H, Aboushelib MN, Feilzer AJ. 2008. Strength influencing variables on CAD/CAM zirconia frameworks. Dent Mater. 24:633–638.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weinans H, Huiskes R, Grootenboer HJ. 1992. The behavior of adaptive bone-remodeling simulation models. J Biomech. 25:1425–1441.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whalen RT, Carter DR, Steele CR. 1988. Influence of physical activity on the regulation of bone density. J Biomech. 21:825–837.
   Google Scholar
• Whalen J, Parke W, Mazur J, Stauffer E. 1985. The intrinsic vasculature of developing vertebral end plates and its nutritive significance to the intervertebral discs. J Pediatr Orthop. 5(4):403–410.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winter U. 2004. Simulating the adaptive remodeling of bone in response to mechanical influences using ANSYS. In Proc. International ANSYS Conf. 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Youssef G, Reed N, Huynh NU, Rosenow B. 2020. Experimentally-validated predictions of impact response of polyurea foams using viscoelasticity based on bulk properties. Mech Mater. 148:103432.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar