Literature DB >> 16122596

A biomechanical evaluation of bilateral sagittal ramus osteotomy fixation techniques.

Gilman P Peterson1, Richard H Haug, Joseph Van Sickels.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate and compare the biomechanical behavior of various rigid internal fixation plates designed to aid in the condylar positioning of bilateral sagittal ramus osteotomies, to positional screws in an inverted-L pattern, and a control.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty polyurethane synthetic mandible replicas (Synbone, Laudquart, Switzerland) were used in this investigation. Five controls and 5 each of 4 different fixation modalities (3 bicortical positional screws in an inverted-L pattern, monocortical 4-hole straight plates, monocortical 6-hole curved plates, and monocortical adjustable 4-hole slide plates) were subjected to vertical loading at the incisal edge and torsional loading at the molar region by an Instron 1331 (Instron, Canton, MA) servohydraulic mechanical testing unit. Mechanical deformation data within a 0 to 900 N range were recorded. Yield load, yield displacement, and stiffness were determined. Means and standard deviations were derived and compared for statistical significance using a Fisher's Protected Least Significant Differences Test with a confidence level of 95% (P < .05). Second-order polynomial best-fit curves were also created for each group to further evaluate mechanical behavior.
RESULTS: For incisal edge loading, statistically significant differences were noted between the control group and all other groups for yield load and stiffness, and between the control group and straight, curved, and slide plates for yield displacement. Differences were also noted between the inverted-L and straight, strut, and slide plates for yield load; and inverted-L and straight, curved, and slide, as well as straight and slide for yield displacement. For molar loading, statistically significant differences were noted between the control group and all other groups for yield load and stiffness. Differences were noted between the slide and straight, curved, and control; as well as between the inverted-L and straight and strut plates for yield displacement. Lastly, differences were noted between the straight and curved plates, and the slide and straight, curved, and inverted-L for stiffness.
CONCLUSION: In this in vitro study, differences were noted between the control and all experimental groups in their abilities to resist loads under all of the conditions tested. Differences were also noted among specific experimental groups. Yet when placed in the context of functional parameters, only the bicortical positional screws in an inverted-L pattern met the requirements for both molar loading and incisal edge loading.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16122596     DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2005.05.301

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


  13 in total

1.  Analysis of Mandibular Test Specimens Used to Assess a Bone Fixation System.

Authors:  Leandro Stocco Baccarin; Renato Correa Viana Casarin; Jorge Vicente Lopes-da-Silva; Luis Augusto Passeri
Journal:  Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr       Date:  2014-11-20

2.  In vitro biomechanical evaluation of the effect of an additional L-shaped plate on straight or box plate fixation in sagittal split ramus osteotomy using a bioabsorbable plate system.

Authors:  Kazuhiro Matsushita; Nobuo Inoue; Yasunori Totsuka
Journal:  Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2011-03-04

3.  Three lateral osteotomy designs for bilateral sagittal split osteotomy: biomechanical evaluation with three-dimensional finite element analysis.

Authors:  Hiromasa Takahashi; Shigeaki Moriyama; Haruhiko Furuta; Hisao Matsunaga; Yuki Sakamoto; Toshihiro Kikuta
Journal:  Head Face Med       Date:  2010-03-26       Impact factor: 2.151

4.  Influence of the mandibular plane and magnitude of the movement in sagittal split ramus osteotomy: an in vitro study.

Authors:  Gleysson Matias de Assis; Victor Diniz Borborema Dos Santos; Salomão Israel Monteiro Lourenço Queiroz; Adriano Rocha Germano
Journal:  Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2022-01-10

5.  Does the type of sagittal split ramus osteotomy influence fixation strength? Evaluation of the mechanical behavior of two types of fixation used in three types of sagittal split ramus osteotomy.

Authors:  Soraya da Silva Oliveira; Pedro Henrique Mattos de Carvalho; Cássio Edvard Sverzut; Alexandre Elias Trivellato
Journal:  Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2022-01-12

6.  Closure of anterior open bites with mandibular surgery: advantages and disadvantages of this approach.

Authors:  Joseph E Van Sickels; Aaron Wallender
Journal:  Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2012-09-04

7.  A qualitative engineering analysis of occlusion effects on mandibular fracture repair mechanics.

Authors:  Thomas R Katona
Journal:  J Dent Biomech       Date:  2011-09-29

8.  An in vitro comparison between two different designs of sagittal split ramus osteotomy.

Authors:  Valdir Cabral Andrade; Leonardo Flores Luthi; Fabio Loureiro Sato; Leandro Pozzer; Sergio Olate; Jose Ricardo Albergaria-Barbosa
Journal:  J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2015-06-23

Review 9.  TMJ response to mandibular advancement surgery: an overview of risk factors.

Authors:  José Valladares-Neto; Lucia Helena Cevidanes; Wesley Cabral Rocha; Guilherme de Araújo Almeida; João Batista de Paiva; José Rino-Neto
Journal:  J Appl Oral Sci       Date:  2014 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.698

10.  Biomechanical in vitro evaluation of three stable internal fixation techniques used in sagittal osteotomy of the mandibular ramus: a study in sheep mandibles.

Authors:  Leandro Benetti de Olivera; Eduardo Sant' Ana; Antonio José Manzato; Fábio Luis Bunemer Guerra; G William Arnett
Journal:  J Appl Oral Sci       Date:  2012 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.698

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.