Literature DB >> 12420268

Does plate adaptation affect stability? A biomechanical comparison of locking and nonlocking plates.

Richard H Haug1, Chad C Street, Michele Goltz.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The purpose of this investigation was to determine whether the degree of plate adaptation and effects of locking influenced the mechanical behavior of the plate/screw/substrate system for 2.0-mm monocortical superior border plates and 2.4-mm reconstruction plates secured at the inferior border intended to stabilize simulated mandibular angle fractures.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 130 polyurethane synthetic mandible replicas (Synbone, Landquart, Switzerland) were used in this investigation. Five controls each, for incisal edge and molar loading, as well as 5 samples each for 2.4-mm locking and nonlocking reconstruction plates and 2.0-mm locking and nonlocking monocortical superior border plates, intimately adapted (0.0-mm offset), 1.0-mm offset and 2.0-mm offset were subjected to loading at the incisal edge and molar region with an Instron 1331 (Instron Corp, Canton, MA) servohydraulic mechanical testing unit. Load/displacement data were recorded, and yield load, yield displacement, and stiffness were determined. Mean and standard deviation values were calculated. Statistically significant differences were determined for the effects of locking and degree of plate adaptation using a 1-way analysis of variance (P <.05). For differences within categories and among groups, a Sheffé multiple-comparison test was performed. First-order polynomial best-fit curves were created for each group to further evaluate and compare the mechanical behavior.
RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences (P <.05) for yield load, yield displacement, and stiffness within the 2.4 and the 2.0 locking categories for both molar and incisal edge loading. For the 2.4 nonlocking category, there were statistically significant differences for yield load, yield displacement, and stiffness between the 0.0-mm offset group and both the 1.0-mm and 2.0-mm offset groups for both molar and incisal edge loading but not between the 1.0-mm and 2.0-mm groups. For the 2.0 nonlocking category, there were statistically significant differences for yield load, yield displacement, and stiffness between both the 0.0-mm and 1.0-mm offset groups and the 2.0-mm offset group for both molar and incisal edge loading but not between the 0.0-mm and 1.0-mm groups.
CONCLUSIONS: The degree of adaptation (amount of offset) affected the mechanical behavior of the nonlocking systems evaluated. It did not affect the locking systems. Failure occurred as an "all-or-nothing" pattern. Copyright 2002 American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons J Oral Maxillofac Surg 60:1319-1326, 2002

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12420268     DOI: 10.1053/joms.2002.35732

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Oral Maxillofac Surg        ISSN: 0278-2391            Impact factor:   1.895


  31 in total

1.  Locking versus nonlocking plates in mandibular reconstruction with fibular graft--a biomechanical ex vivo study.

Authors:  Susanne Trainotti; Stefan Raith; Marco Kesting; Stefan Eichhorn; Florian Bauer; Andreas Kolk; Bernd Lethaus; Frank Hölzle; Timm Steiner
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2013-09-22       Impact factor: 3.573

2.  Decision-making algorithm in treatment of the atrophic mandible fractures.

Authors:  F De Feudis; M De Benedittis; V Antonicelli; P Pittore; R Cortelazzi
Journal:  G Chir       Date:  2014 Mar-Apr

3.  Mandibular Angle Fractures: A Clinical and Biomechanical Comparison-the Works of Ellis and Haug.

Authors:  Richard H Haug; Bethany L Serafin
Journal:  Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr       Date:  2008-11

4.  Pearls of mandibular trauma management.

Authors:  John C Koshy; Evan M Feldman; Chuma J Chike-Obi; Jamal M Bullocks
Journal:  Semin Plast Surg       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 2.314

5.  [Operative treatment of traumatic fractures of the thorax and lumbar spine. Part II: surgical treatment and radiological findings].

Authors:  M Reinhold; C Knop; R Beisse; L Audigé; F Kandziora; A Pizanis; R Pranzl; E Gercek; M Schultheiss; A Weckbach; V Bühren; M Blauth
Journal:  Unfallchirurg       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 1.000

Review 6.  Fixation of mandibular angle fractures: in vitro biomechanical assessments and computer-based studies.

Authors:  Bruno Ramos Chrcanovic
Journal:  Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2012-10-14

7.  Rapid cooling through the glass transition transiently increases ductility of PGA/PLLA copolymers: a proposed mechanism and implications for devices.

Authors:  William S Pietrzak
Journal:  J Mater Sci Mater Med       Date:  2007-05-05       Impact factor: 3.896

8.  [Experiences in the treatment of midfacial fractures using a fixed-angle osteosynthetic system. Biomechanical results].

Authors:  S Flinzberg; M Heiland; M Vesper; K Seide; D Wolter; N Weinrich; R Schmelzle
Journal:  Mund Kiefer Gesichtschir       Date:  2004-04-06

9.  Study of Efficacy and the Comparison Between 2.0 mm Locking Plating System and 2.0 mm Standard Plating System in Mandibular Fractures.

Authors:  B Pavan Kumar; K A Jeevan Kumar; V Venkatesh; A P Mohan; K Ramesh; K Mallikarjun
Journal:  J Maxillofac Oral Surg       Date:  2014-11-05

10.  Standard 3D Titanium Miniplate Versus Locking 3D Miniplate in Fracture of Mandible: A Prospective Comparative Study.

Authors:  Arjun Singh; K V Arunkumar
Journal:  J Maxillofac Oral Surg       Date:  2015-07-29
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.