Literature DB >> 29325887

Stiffness and strength of cranioplastic implant systems in comparison to cranial bone.

Johan Persson1, Benedikt Helgason2, Håkan Engqvist1, Stephen J Ferguson2, Cecilia Persson3.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate skull replacement options after decompressive craniectomy by systematically investigating which combination of geometrical properties and material selection would result in a mechanical response comparable in stiffness to that of native skull bone and a strength as high or higher than the same.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was conducted using a Finite Element Model of the top part of a human skull. Native skull bone, autografts and commercial implants made of PEEK, solid titanium, two titanium meshes and a titanium-ceramic composite were modeled under a set load to evaluate deformation and maximum stress.
RESULTS: The computational result showed a large variation of the strength and effective stiffness of the autografts and implants. The stiffness of native bone varied by a factor of 20 and the strength by a factor of eight. The implants span the entire span of the native skull, both in stiffness and strength.
CONCLUSION: All the investigated implant materials had a potential for having the same effective stiffness as the native skull bone. All the materials also had the potential to be as strong as the native bone. To match inherent properties, the best choice of material and thickness is thus patient specific, depending on the quality of the patient's native bone.
Copyright © 2017 European Association for Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Craniectomy; Craniocurve; Cranioplasty; KLS martin mesh system; Mechanical properties; OSSDSIGN cranial

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29325887     DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2017.11.025

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Craniomaxillofac Surg        ISSN: 1010-5182            Impact factor:   2.078


  5 in total

1.  Deformation of cranioplasty titanium mesh in a paediatric patient following head trauma.

Authors:  Basel Sharaf; Malke Asaad; Joseph Banuelos; Jesse Meaike
Journal:  BMJ Case Rep       Date:  2019-06-11

2.  Analysis of PMMA versus CaP titanium-enhanced implants for cranioplasty after decompressive craniectomy: a retrospective observational cohort study.

Authors:  Dominik Wesp; Harald Krenzlin; Dragan Jankovic; Malte Ottenhausen; Max Jägersberg; Florian Ringel; Naureen Keric
Journal:  Neurosurg Rev       Date:  2022-10-12       Impact factor: 2.800

3.  Case report: chronic inflammatory ulcer and osteoradionecrosis of the skull following radiotherapy in early childhood.

Authors:  Birte Julia Siegmund; Jan Rustemeyer
Journal:  Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2019-04-23

4.  In situ bone regeneration of large cranial defects using synthetic ceramic implants with a tailored composition and design.

Authors:  Omar Omar; Thomas Engstrand; Lars Kihlström Burenstam Linder; Jonas Åberg; Furqan A Shah; Anders Palmquist; Ulrik Birgersson; Ibrahim Elgali; Michael Pujari-Palmer; Håkan Engqvist; Peter Thomsen
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2020-10-12       Impact factor: 11.205

5.  Thickness accuracy of virtually designed patient-specific implants for large neurocranial defects.

Authors:  Claudia Wittner; Markus Borowski; Lukas Pirl; Johann Kastner; Andreas Schrempf; Ute Schäfer; Klemens Trieb; Sascha Senck
Journal:  J Anat       Date:  2021-06-04       Impact factor: 2.610

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.