Comperative evaluation of the current and new design miniplate fixation techniques of the advanced sagittal split ramus osteotomy using three-dimensional finite element analysis.
Journal
Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal
ISSN: 1698-6946
Titre abrégé: Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal
Pays: Spain
ID NLM: 101231694
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Nov 2023
01 Nov 2023
Historique:
received:
10
02
2023
accepted:
24
08
2023
medline:
31
10
2023
pubmed:
12
10
2023
entrez:
12
10
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The aim of this study was to evaluate the stress occurring in the fixation systems both developed in various geometric designs for this study and currently used in sagittal split ramus advancement osteotomy using finite element analysis. The finite element model that imitates three-dimensional sagittal split advancement osteotomy was fixed in 10 different miniplate fixation methods: one miniplate fixed with four monocortical screws in a horizontal and oblique pattern; four-hole two miniplates with eight monocortical screws; five-hole miniplate fixed with four monocortical and one bicortical screws; six-hole straight and curved miniplates fixed with six monocortical screws in different geometric designs. Unilateral masticatory muscle loads that have previously determined in the literature were applied to the model at the anatomical muscle attachment regions and the data obtained from finite element analysis and static linear analysis methods were recorded as Von mises, maximum principle and minimum principle stress values. It was observed from the results that maximum stress occurred in Group 1, which consisted of double backward T-shaped miniplate with 6-holes and, minimum stress occured in group 10, which mimiced hybrid system with one miniplate and four monocortical and one bicortical screws. Based on our results, the stress on the miniplates changes according to the geometric designs and the stress on the miniplate decreases as the numbers of miniplates and bars increase. The hybrid miniplate may be preferred by the surgeon as it will be exposed to less stress in excessive mandibular advancements by using the advantages of both the miniplate and the bicortical screw.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The aim of this study was to evaluate the stress occurring in the fixation systems both developed in various geometric designs for this study and currently used in sagittal split ramus advancement osteotomy using finite element analysis.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
METHODS
The finite element model that imitates three-dimensional sagittal split advancement osteotomy was fixed in 10 different miniplate fixation methods: one miniplate fixed with four monocortical screws in a horizontal and oblique pattern; four-hole two miniplates with eight monocortical screws; five-hole miniplate fixed with four monocortical and one bicortical screws; six-hole straight and curved miniplates fixed with six monocortical screws in different geometric designs. Unilateral masticatory muscle loads that have previously determined in the literature were applied to the model at the anatomical muscle attachment regions and the data obtained from finite element analysis and static linear analysis methods were recorded as Von mises, maximum principle and minimum principle stress values.
RESULTS
RESULTS
It was observed from the results that maximum stress occurred in Group 1, which consisted of double backward T-shaped miniplate with 6-holes and, minimum stress occured in group 10, which mimiced hybrid system with one miniplate and four monocortical and one bicortical screws.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Based on our results, the stress on the miniplates changes according to the geometric designs and the stress on the miniplate decreases as the numbers of miniplates and bars increase. The hybrid miniplate may be preferred by the surgeon as it will be exposed to less stress in excessive mandibular advancements by using the advantages of both the miniplate and the bicortical screw.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37823299
pii: 25964
doi: 10.4317/medoral.25964
pmc: PMC10635628
doi:
Types de publication
Evaluation Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e553-e561Références
Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015 Sep;19(3):281-5
pubmed: 25784154
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2019 Jul;47(7):1015-1019
pubmed: 30718216
Br J Oral Surg. 1982 Sep;20(3):175-82
pubmed: 6958313
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2005 Jan;63(1):68-76
pubmed: 15635560
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017 Nov;46(11):1387-1393
pubmed: 28633929
Bull Tokyo Dent Coll. 2018;59(2):67-78
pubmed: 29962423
Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg. 1992;7(3):147-51
pubmed: 1291608
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2002 Jan;60(1):59-65
pubmed: 11757010
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2005 Jul;34(5):551-8
pubmed: 16053877
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2018 Dec;46(12):2082-2087
pubmed: 30322777
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2006 Sep;35(9):837-41
pubmed: 16687240
J Oral Surg. 1977 Feb;35(2):157-9
pubmed: 264514
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1990 Feb;48(2):108-21; discussion 122-3
pubmed: 2299454
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1989 Jul;47(7):720-3
pubmed: 2732831
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009 Feb;67(2):301-13
pubmed: 19138603
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012 Aug;41(8):934-41
pubmed: 22510341
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2014 Jun;42(4):351-5
pubmed: 23838410
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2004 Jul;33(5):433-41
pubmed: 15183405
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010 Jan;68(1):160-6
pubmed: 20006171
J Appl Oral Sci. 2010 Jan-Feb;18(1):92-9
pubmed: 20379687
Braz Dent J. 2016 May-Jun;27(3):284-91
pubmed: 27224561
J Maxillofac Surg. 1973 Jun;1(2):79-84
pubmed: 4520558
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015 Jul;44(7):823-9
pubmed: 25766461
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1996 Feb;54(2):234-5
pubmed: 8604080
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2018 Jun;46(6):923-931
pubmed: 29724535
J Appl Oral Sci. 2012 Jul-Aug;20(4):419-26
pubmed: 23032203
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2014 Jul;42(5):e224-9
pubmed: 24103461