Biomechanical evaluation of type p condylar head osteosynthesis using conventional small-fragment screws reinforced by a patient specific two-component plate.
Biomechanics
Condylar head fracture
FEA
Finite element analysis
Reinforcement plate
Screw osteosynthesis
Journal
Head & face medicine
ISSN: 1746-160X
Titre abrégé: Head Face Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101245792
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
19 Oct 2020
19 Oct 2020
Historique:
received:
17
04
2020
accepted:
17
09
2020
entrez:
20
10
2020
pubmed:
21
10
2020
medline:
11
11
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The aim of this study was to evaluate via finite element analysis (FEA) the biomechanical behavior of conventional small-fragment screws reinforced by a patient-specific plate in type p condylar head. A finite element model of the mandible was created using Mimics 12.1 software. A type p condylar head fracture was simulated in the right condyle, and the left condyle was used as a control. Two patterns of fixation were investigated: conventional two-screw fixation and the same fixation system reinforced with a small, patient-specific plate. Surface models were imported into the software Ansys 5.7for further volume mesh generation. The highest stress gradients were observed in the cortical layer of the lateral fragment, located near the screw. The conventional fixation method resulted in equivalent stresses 2 to 10 times greater than the reinforced method. Rigidity of fixation in the reinforced method increased up to 1.25-3 times compared to the conventional two-screw technique. This study's findings suggest significant benefits in unfavorable biomechanical conditions from reinforcement of the standard two-screw fixation of condylar head fractures with a small, patient-specific plate acting as a washer.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The aim of this study was to evaluate via finite element analysis (FEA) the biomechanical behavior of conventional small-fragment screws reinforced by a patient-specific plate in type p condylar head.
METHODS
METHODS
A finite element model of the mandible was created using Mimics 12.1 software. A type p condylar head fracture was simulated in the right condyle, and the left condyle was used as a control. Two patterns of fixation were investigated: conventional two-screw fixation and the same fixation system reinforced with a small, patient-specific plate. Surface models were imported into the software Ansys 5.7for further volume mesh generation.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The highest stress gradients were observed in the cortical layer of the lateral fragment, located near the screw. The conventional fixation method resulted in equivalent stresses 2 to 10 times greater than the reinforced method. Rigidity of fixation in the reinforced method increased up to 1.25-3 times compared to the conventional two-screw technique.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
This study's findings suggest significant benefits in unfavorable biomechanical conditions from reinforcement of the standard two-screw fixation of condylar head fractures with a small, patient-specific plate acting as a washer.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33076933
doi: 10.1186/s13005-020-00236-0
pii: 10.1186/s13005-020-00236-0
pmc: PMC7574441
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
25Références
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2012 Feb;40(2):112-5
pubmed: 21470868
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010 Jun;39(6):548-53
pubmed: 20207109
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2016 Feb;44(2):167-76
pubmed: 26732638
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2014 Sep;42(6):730-7
pubmed: 24359864
J Biomech. 2008;41(2):356-67
pubmed: 18022179
Ugeskr Laeger. 1995 Jun 12;157(24):3472-6
pubmed: 7792975
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015 Mar;73(3):482-93
pubmed: 25577459
J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact. 2000 Dec;1(2):165-70
pubmed: 15758514
J Theor Biol. 2012 May 21;301:1-14
pubmed: 22342680
J Orofac Pain. 1994 Spring;8(2):178-89
pubmed: 7920353
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2018 Mar;46(3):391-397
pubmed: 29311022
Mund Kiefer Gesichtschir. 2004 Mar;8(2):63-74
pubmed: 15045529
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009 Feb;38(2):187-92
pubmed: 19179046
Mund Kiefer Gesichtschir. 2000 Mar;4(2):111-7
pubmed: 10851885
Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016 Oct;54(8):872-877
pubmed: 27521271
Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018 Jan;56(1):74-76
pubmed: 29174002
Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr. 2015 Jun;8(2):111-6
pubmed: 26000081
Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr. 2009 Mar;2(1):1-18
pubmed: 22110792
J Biomech. 1997 Sep;30(9):883-9
pubmed: 9302610
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018 Dec;76(12):2583-2591
pubmed: 30172765
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2002 Jul;60(7):784-91; discussion 792
pubmed: 12089693
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2006 Jul;34(5):306-14
pubmed: 16781159
Atlas Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am. 2017 Mar;25(1):25-34
pubmed: 28153180
Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr. 2014 Dec;7(Suppl 1):S044-58
pubmed: 25489390
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2015 May;43(4):452-61
pubmed: 25773375
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2005 Sep;34(6):597-604
pubmed: 16053886
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2016 Dec;44(12):1913-1916
pubmed: 27769722
Mund Kiefer Gesichtschir. 2000 Mar;4(2):69-87
pubmed: 10851880
Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am. 2019 Nov;31(4):593-600
pubmed: 31481289
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2018 Nov;46(11):1953-1959
pubmed: 30292752
J Biomech. 2005 Dec;38(12):2431-9
pubmed: 16214491
Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013 Apr;51(3):e29-33
pubmed: 22475367
J Oral Biol Craniofac Res. 2020 Apr-Jun;10(2):49-53
pubmed: 32099771
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2014 Jul;42(5):482-8
pubmed: 23906675
Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013 Mar;51(2):138-43
pubmed: 22546281
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2006 May;64(5):868-72
pubmed: 16631501
Mund Kiefer Gesichtschir. 2005 Mar;9(2):80-8
pubmed: 15711992
Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010 Sep;48(6):477-8
pubmed: 19896755