Improving mandibular reconstruction by using topology optimization, patient specific design and additive manufacturing?-A biomechanical comparison against miniplates on human specimen.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
18
12
2020
accepted:
26
05
2021
entrez:
8
6
2021
pubmed:
9
6
2021
medline:
16
11
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In this study, topology optimized, patient specific osteosynthesis plates (TOPOS-implants) are evaluated for the mandibular reconstruction using fibula segments. These shape optimized implants are compared to a standard treatment with miniplates (thickness: 1.0 mm, titanium grade 4) in biomechanical testing using human cadaveric specimen. Mandible and fibula of 21 body donors were used. Geometrical models were created based on automated segmentation of CT-scans of all specimens. All reconstructions, including cutting guides for osteotomy as well as TOPOS-implants, were planned using a custom-made software tool. The TOPOS-implants were produced by electron beam melting (thickness: 1.0 mm, titanium grade 5). The fibula-reconstructed mandibles were tested in static and dynamic testing in a multi-axial test system, which can adapt to the donor anatomy and apply side-specific loads. Static testing was used to confirm mechanical similarity between the reconstruction groups. Force-controlled dynamic testing was performed with a sinusoidal loading between 60 and 240 N (reconstructed side: 30% reduction to consider resected muscles) at 5 Hz for up to 5 · 105 cycles. There was a significant difference between the groups for dynamic testing: All TOPOS-implants stayed intact during all cycles, while miniplate failure occurred after 26.4% of the planned loading (1.32 · 105 ± 1.46 · 105 cycles). Bone fracture occurred in both groups (miniplates: n = 3, TOPOS-implants: n = 2). A correlation between bone failure and cortical bone thickness in mandible angle as well as the number of bicortical screws used was demonstrated. For both groups no screw failure was detected. In conclusion, the topology optimized, patient specific implants showed superior fatigue properties compared to miniplates in mandibular reconstruction. Additionally, the patient specific shape comes with intrinsic guiding properties to support the reconstruction process during surgery. This demonstrates that the combination of additive manufacturing and topology optimization can be beneficial for future maxillofacial surgery.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34101755
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253002
pii: PONE-D-20-39788
pmc: PMC8186800
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0253002Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. The affiliation Josefinum, and private practice for Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery at Pferseepark of JW does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.
Références
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008 Dec;122(6):1733-1738
pubmed: 19050525
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016 Sep;74(9):1879-95
pubmed: 27087284
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010 Aug;68(8):1833-41
pubmed: 20537782
J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2015 Jan;41:23-35
pubmed: 25460400
Plast Reconstr Surg. 1989 Sep;84(3):391-403; discussion 404-5
pubmed: 2762397
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2001 Jul;16(6):489-95
pubmed: 11427291
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010 Nov;68(11):2824-32
pubmed: 20828910
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2012 Dec;40(8):e511-5
pubmed: 22551671
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2017 Oct;45(10):1632-1638
pubmed: 28867525
Anat Rec (Hoboken). 2012 May;295(5):853-63
pubmed: 22467624
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010 Dec;92 Suppl 2:12-22
pubmed: 21123589
Anat Rec. 2001 Apr 1;262(4):398-419
pubmed: 11275971
J Craniofac Surg. 2014 Mar;25(2):397-9
pubmed: 24561366
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2017 Nov;45(11):1878-1883
pubmed: 28943180
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2007 May;65(5):924-30
pubmed: 17448842
Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2015 Dec;10(12):2035-51
pubmed: 25843949
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2016 Jul;44(7):795-9
pubmed: 27193477
Injury. 2014 Oct;45(10):1648-52
pubmed: 24813098
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1997 Feb;123(2):217-22
pubmed: 9046293
Int J Med Robot. 2018 Apr;14(2):
pubmed: 29423929
Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr. 2012 Sep;5(3):137-44
pubmed: 23997858
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2017 Aug;45(8):1246-1250
pubmed: 28606440
Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2021 Mar;25(1):103-111
pubmed: 32725572
Clin Oral Investig. 2020 Sep;24(9):3077-3083
pubmed: 31955270
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014 Jul;43(7):841-5
pubmed: 24582290
Biomed Eng Online. 2017 Nov 15;16(1):131
pubmed: 29141673
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017 Oct;46(10):1248-1251
pubmed: 28648958
Am J Phys Anthropol. 1992 May;88(1):69-96
pubmed: 1510115
J Biomech. 2008;41(5):1069-76
pubmed: 18191864
Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016 Jun;54(5):506-10
pubmed: 26898519
Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin. 2017 Mar;20(4):426-435
pubmed: 27887036
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2017 Nov;45(11):1884-1897
pubmed: 28965991
Ann Plast Surg. 1989 Dec;23(6):498-507
pubmed: 2624393
Med Biol Eng Comput. 2012 Jul;50(7):743-9
pubmed: 22447348
Mund Kiefer Gesichtschir. 2001 May;5(3):180-5
pubmed: 11432334
J Prosthet Dent. 1990 Jul;64(1):62-73
pubmed: 2384899
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2014 Sep;42(6):855-62
pubmed: 24467871
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009 May;67(5):973-85
pubmed: 19375006
Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010 Mar;48(2):100-4
pubmed: 19647911