| Literature DB >> 33082893 |
Edward Kijak1,2, Jerzy Margielewicz3, Małgorzata Pihut4.
Abstract
Material: Experimental and model tests were conducted on ten fresh porcine temporomandibular joint discs. The average thickness of disc tissue was, accordingly, 2.77 mm for the anterior zone, 3.98 mm for the posterior, and 1.54 mm for the intermediate. The selection of research material in the form of porcine discs was due to the similarity to human discs.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33082893 PMCID: PMC7563056 DOI: 10.1155/2020/6032832
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pain Res Manag ISSN: 1203-6765 Impact factor: 3.037
Figure 1Force-displacement characteristics of TMJ discs: (a) ignoring the first load cycle; (b) separated load phases and unloading different cycles.
Figure 2Hysteresis loops on the basis of which the nondimensional energy dispersion coefficient is identified: (a) material with linear properties; (b) material with nonlinear properties.
Figure 3Kelvin–Voigt model-schematic representation.
Dissipation properties of transport discs.
| Cycle no. | Anterior zone | Intermediate zone | Posterior zone | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ∆ |
| ∆ |
| Δ | |
| Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | |
| 2 | 0.94 (0.27) | 0.78 (0.09) | 0.73 (0.15) | 0.45 (0.18) | 0.84 (0.27) | 0.56 (0.46) |
| 3 | 0.80 (0.22) | 0.62 (0.10) | 0.65 (0.08) | 0.39 (0.11) | 0.69 (0.23) | 0.44 (0.38) |
| 4 | 0.71 (0.18) | 0.51 (0.08) | 0.61 (0.07) | 0.35 (0.11) | 0.63 (0.20) | 0.38 (0.31) |
| 5 | 0.67 (0.17) | 0.46 (0.07) | 0.58 (0.07) | 0.31 (0.12) | 0.59 (0.16) | 0.33 (0.24) |
| 6 | 0.61 (0.15) | 0.41 (0.06) | 0.55 (0.07) | 0.30 (0.13) | 0.56 (0.15) | 0.31 (0.24) |
| 7 | 0.59 (0.14) | 0.40 (0.05) | 0.54 (0.07) | 0.29 (0.11) | 0.54 (0.13) | 0.27 (0.20) |
| 8 | 0.56 (0.13) | 0.33 (0.04) | 0.53 (0.07) | 0.25 (0.10) | 0.51 (0.12) | 0.26 (0.18) |
| 9 | 0.54 (0.12) | 0.30 (0.04) | 0.52 (0.07) | 0.24 (0.10) | 0.51 (0.11) | 0.25 (0.15) |
| 10 | 0.54 (0.12) | 0.32 (0.02) | 0.52 (0.08) | 0.28 (0.12) | 0.49 (0.10) | 0.23 (0.14) |
Figure 4Average values calculated for particular load cycles: (a) energy dispersion coefficient ψ; (b) parameter ΔF.
Figure 5Model test results illustrating the effect of (a) energy dispersion coefficient ψ and (b) number of cycles on the parameter q0.
Figure 6Course of static characteristics depending on (a) number of loading cycles and (b) TMJ disc load area.