| Literature DB >> 30961605 |
Shahrokh Hatefi1, Milad Etemadi Sh2, Yimesker Yihun3, Roozbeh Mansouri4, Alireza Akhlaghi5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Distraction osteogenesis (DO) is a novel technique widely used in human body reconstruction. DO has got a significant role in maxillofacial reconstruction applications (MRA); through this method, bone defects and skeletal deformities in various cranio-maxillofacial areas could be reconstructed with superior results in comparison to conventional methods. Recent studies revealed in a DO solution, using an automatic continuous distractor could significantly improve the results while decreasing the existing issues. This study is aimed at designing and developing a novel automatic continuous distraction osteogenesis (ACDO) device to be used in the MRA.Entities:
Keywords: Automatic continuous distractor; Distraction osteogenesis; Medical devices
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30961605 PMCID: PMC6454606 DOI: 10.1186/s12938-019-0655-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Eng Online ISSN: 1475-925X Impact factor: 2.819
Fig. 1The 3D model of the designed TM
28BYJ-48 stepper motor specifications
| 28BYJ-48 stepper motor | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rated voltage | 5 V DC | Shaft stride angle | 0.088° |
| Number of phases | 4 | Rotor stride angle | 5.625° |
| Current | 4*10−2 A | In-traction torque | > 34.3*10−3 N m |
| DC resistance | 54 Ω | Friction torque | 0.12 N m |
| Phase inductance | 3*10−3 H | Pull in torque | 0.06 N m |
| Frequency | 100 Hz | Insulated resistance | > 10 MΩ (500 V) |
| Speed variation ratio | 1/64 | Noise | < 35 dB |
Fig. 2The lead screw translation mechanism
The positioning accuracy of the system
| Drive mode | Rotor stride angle (°) | Shaft stride angle (°) | Positioning accuracy (nm) | Carriage movement (nm/step) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Full-step (1/1) | 5.625 | 0.088 | 244.14 | 244.14 |
| Half-step (1/2) | 2.8125 | 0.044 | 122.07 | 122.07 |
| Micro-step (1/32) | 0.176 | 0.00275 | 7.63 | 7.63 |
Fig. 3The schematic model of the mechatronic part [54]
Fig. 4The block diagram of the ACDO controller
Fig. 5The controller circuit of the ACDO device
Fig. 6The current subsystem
Fig. 7Speed and position subsystems
Fig. 8The overall simulation model of stepper motor
Fig. 9The schematic model of the TS
Predetermined factors of the tests
| Test | Repeat cycle | DT (h) | DL (mm) | DR (mm/day) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | 10 | 48 | 10 | 5 |
| B | 10 | 96 | 20 | 5 |
| C | 10 | 80 | 10 | 3 |
| D | 5 | 160 | 20 | 3 |
| E | 5 | 240 | 10 | 1 |
| F | 2 | 480 | 20 | 1 |
Fig. 10The device connected to the sheep jaw bone
Fig. 11The DF measurement exam
Fig. 12Simulation results of the stepper motor
Fig. 13Simulation results of the stepper motor
The mean measured factors of the tests
| Test | A | B | C | D | E | F |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MMDL (mm) | 10.07 | 20.16 | 10.09 | 20.17 | 10.03 | 20.05 |
| MCDR (mm/day) | 5.03 | 5.04 | 3.02 | 3.02 | 1.003 | 1.002 |
The mean measured errors of the tests
| Test | A | B | C | D | E | F |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean measured distraction length error (mm) | 0.07 | 0.16 | 0.09 | 0.17 | 0.03 | 0.05 |
| Mean calculated distraction rate error (mm/day) | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Mean calculated step error (nm) | 0.05 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.02 | 0.02 |
| DL error rate (%) | 0.7 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 0.85 | 0.3 | 0.25 |
| DR error rate (%) | 3 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 0.3 | 0.2 |
| Mean calculated step error rate (%) | 5 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 2 | 2 |
Fig. 14The mean measured DT and the MMDL of the tests
The existing ACDO devices and their specifications
| Refs. | Year | Mechanism | Distraction accuracy (μm) | Distraction step error (μm) | Operated distraction rate (mm/day) | Maximum travel (mm) | Distraction force (N) | Total size (mm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ | 1999 | Motor-based | 40 | 0.5 | 1 | 13.6 | – | – |
| [ | 2000 | Hydraulic | – | – | 1.5 | – | 30 to 50 | – |
| [ | 2004 | Motor-based | 1000 | 20 | 1 | 15 | 70 | 60 |
| [ | 2005 | Hydraulic | – | – | 1 | 16 | 20 | – |
| [ | 2008 | Motor-based | – | 80 | 0.9 | 10 | 19 | 55 |
| [ | 2009 | Hydraulic | 10 | 86 | 1 | 25 | 25 to 40 | 30 to 100 |
| [ | 2009 | Syringe pump | – | 21,000 | 0.9 | 15 | – | – |
| [ | 2010 | Motor-based | 600 | – | – | 15 | 35.6 | – |
| [ | 2011 | Motor-based | 200 | 2000 | 1.4 | 7 | 2.84 | 35 |
| [ | 2011 | Motor-based | 0.75 | 30 | 3 | 3 | – | – |
| [ | 2013 | Hydraulic | – | Average < 500 | 1.5 | 12 | 25 to 40 | 18 |
| Average < 1000 | 3 | |||||||
| – | 4.5 | |||||||
| [ | 2014 | Motor-based | 300 | 4 | 2.4 | 18 | – | – |
| [ | 2015 | Hydraulic | – | – | 3 | 30 | 25 to 40 | – |
| Proposed device | Motor-based | 0.00763 | 0.00006 | 1 | 22 | 38 | 25 | |
| 0.00006 | 3 | |||||||
| 0.00002 | 5 | |||||||