↓ Skip to main content

Precision of fibula positioning guide in mandibular reconstruction with a fibula graft

Overview of attention for article published in Head & Face Medicine, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 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.
Title
Precision of fibula positioning guide in mandibular reconstruction with a fibula graft
Published in
Head & Face Medicine, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13005-016-0104-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Se-Ho Lim, Moon-Key Kim, Sang-Hoon Kang

Abstract

This study examined the usefulness of the fibula positioning guide for boosting the accuracy of mandible reconstructions. Thirty mandibular rapid prototype (RP) models were allocated to experimental (N = 15) and control (N = 15) groups. For reference, we prepared a reconstructed mandibular RP model with a three-dimensional printer, based on surgical simulation. In the experimental group, a fibula positioning guide template and fibula cutting guide, based on simulation, were used to reconstruct the mandible with a fibula graft. In the control group, only the fibula cutting guide, with reference to the reconstructed RP mandible model, was used to reconstruct the mandible with a fibula graft. The two mandibular reconstructions were compared to the surgical simulation by registering images with the non-surgical right side of the mandible. On the reconstructed side, 3D measurements were compared between the surgical simulation and actual surgery, and the sum of differences was taken as the total error. The combined use of the fibula cutting and positioning guides produced a smaller total error (mean ± SD: 10.0 ± 7.9 mm) than the fibula cutting guide alone (12.8 ± 8.8 mm; p = 0.015). The greatest point error was the vertical error at the mesial point of the anterior fibula segment. The anteroposterior and lateral errors were not significantly different between groups. These results showed that these two methods were not significantly different, except in the total and vertical errors. Considering the CAD/CAM processes required for creating positioning devices, the benefit provided with a positioning guide justified its use over the fibula cutting guide alone.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 76 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 16%
Student > Bachelor 11 14%
Researcher 8 11%
Student > Postgraduate 8 11%
Other 7 9%
Other 13 17%
Unknown 17 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 46 61%
Engineering 6 8%
Computer Science 2 3%
Unspecified 1 1%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 1%
Other 1 1%
Unknown 19 25%
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 23 February 2016.
All research outputs
#15,355,821
of 22,842,950 outputs
Outputs from Head & Face Medicine
#127
of 334 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#233,263
of 396,850 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Head & Face Medicine
#7
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,842,950 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 334 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its peers.
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 396,850 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.