Top

Published in:

01-09-2019 | Original Article

Evaluation of different stable internal fixation in unfavorable mandible fractures under finite element analysis

Authors: Cleverson Patussi, Laurindo Moacir Sassi, Rafael Cruz, Guilherme Klein Parise, Delson Costa, Nelson Luís Barbosa Rebellato

Published in: Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery | Issue 3/2019

Abstract

Introduction

The mandibular angle fracture is the most common fracture between this type of injury in jaw bone and also is the type of fracture treatment that presents a larger number of complications, and a series different osteosynthesis types have been studied over the years by the world literature. The finite element method is a form of mathematical analysis, which is based on dividing a structure into a finite number of small areas. It has the ability tomathematically model structures, making it possible to apply forces anywhere.

Material and Methods

For this study, a three-dimensional mandible with an unfavorable angle fracture was simulated. Five different types of fixations were evaluated: group 1, Champy technique with one 4-holes miniplate, 2.0 system; group 2, technique with two parallel 4-holes conventional miniplates, 2.0 system; group 3, technique with two parallel 4-holes locking miniplates, 2.0 system; group 4, technique with one reconstruction 6-holes plate, 2.8 system in base jaw; and group 5, technique with one reconstruction 6-holes plates, 2.8 system in jaw body + one parallel 4-holes conventional miniplate, 2.0 system.

Results

The results showed that strains are better distributed through the locking miniplate and screws system and presented less stress concentration when compared with the conventional ones. The Champy technique had the worst results about of all groups. The use of the locking system shows less stress compared to the non-locking system, and the presence of a reconstruction plate associated with a mini plate does not lead to increased stability compared with an isolated reconstruction plate.

Gear AJ, Apasova E, Schmitz JP, Schubert W (2005) Treatment modalities for mandibular angle fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 63(5):655–663CrossRefPubMed

Goulart DR, Kemmoku DT, Noritomi PY, de Moraes M (2015) Development of a titanium plate for mandibular angle fractures with a bone defect in the lower border: finite element analysis and mechanical test. J Oral Maxillofac Res 6(3):e5. https://doi.org/10.5037/jomr.2015.6305 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Vetter JD, Topazian RG, Goldberg MH, Smith DG (1991) Facial fractures occurring in a medium-sized metropolitan area: recent trends. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 20:214–216CrossRefPubMed

Haug RH, Prather J, Indresano AT (1990) An epidemiologic survey of facial fractures and concomitant injuries. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 48:926–932CrossRefPubMed

Ellis E 3rd (1999) Treatment methods for fractures of the mandibular angle. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 28(4):243–252CrossRefPubMed

Schubert W, Kobienia BJ, Pollock RA (1997 Jul) Cross-sectional area of the mandible. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 55(7):689–692CrossRefPubMed

Mehra P, Murad H (2008) Internal fixation of mandibular angle fractures: a comparison of 2 techniques. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 66(11):2254–2260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2008.06.024 CrossRefPubMed

Dodson TB, Perrot DH, Kaban LB, Gordon NC (1990) Fixation of mandibular fractures: a comparative analysis of rigid internal fixation and standard fixation techniques. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 48(4):362–366CrossRefPubMed

Kilinç Y, Erkmen E, Kurt A (2016) Biomechanical evaluation of different fixation methods for mandibular anterior segmental osteotomy using finite element analysis, part one: superior repositioning surgery. J Craniofac Surg 27(1):32–35. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000002172 CrossRefPubMed

10.

Aquilina P, Chamoli U, Parr WC, Clausen PD, Wroe S (2013) Finite element analysis of three patterns of internal fixation of fractures of the mandibular condyle. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 51(4):326–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2012.08.007 CrossRefPubMed

11.

Knoll WD, Gaida A, Maurer P (2006) Analysis of mechanical stress in reconstruction plates for bridging mandibular angle defects. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 34(4):201–209CrossRefPubMed

12.

Fanuscu MI, Vu HV, Poncelet B (2004) Implant biomechanics in grafted sinus: a finite element analysis. J Oral Implantol 30(2):59–68CrossRefPubMed

13.

Kilinç Y, Erkmen E, Kurt A (2016) Biomechanical evaluation of different fixation methods for mandibular anterior segmental osteotomy using finite element analysis, part two: superior repositioning surgery with bone allograft. J Craniofac Surg 27(1):36–40. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000002173 CrossRefPubMed

14.

Maurer P, Holweg S, Knoll WD, Schubert J (2002) Study by finite element method of the mechanical stress of selected biodegradable osteosynthesis screws in sagittal ramus osteotomy. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 40(1):76–83CrossRefPubMed

15.

Coskunses FM, Kocyigit ID, Atil F, Tekin U, Suer BT, Tuz HH, Ozgul O, Yagiz A (2015) Finite-element analysis of a new designed miniplate which is used via intraoral approach to the mandible angle fracture: comparison of the different fixation techniques. J Craniofac Surg J Craniofac Surg 26(5):e445–e448. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000001890. CrossRefPubMed

16.

Cillo JE Jr, Ellis E 3rd (2014) Management of bilateral mandibular angle fractures with combined rigid and nonrigid fixation. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 72(1):106–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2013.07.008 Epub 2013 Sep 14CrossRefPubMed

17.

Choi BH, Kim KN, Kang HS (1995) Clinical and in vitro evaluation of mandibular angle fracture fixation with the two-miniplate system. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 79(6):692–695CrossRefPubMed

18.

Al-Moraissi EA, Ellis E 3rd (2014) What method for management of unilateral mandibular angle fractures has the lowest rate of postoperative complications? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 72(11):2197–2211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2014.05.023 CrossRefPubMed

19.

Singh V, Kumar I, Bhagol A (2011) Comparative evaluation of 2.0-mm locking plate system vs 2.0-mm nonlocking plate system for mandibular fracture: a prospective randomized study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 40(4):372–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2010.11.012 CrossRefPubMed

20.

Shaik M, Subba Raju T, Rao NK, Reddy CK (2014) Effectiveness of 2.0 mm standard and 2.0 mm locking miniplates in management of mandibular fractures: a clinical comparative study. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 13(1):47–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-012-0443-x Epub 2012 Nov 3CrossRefPubMed

21.

Zhan S, Jiang Y, Cheng Z, Ye JA (2014) Meta-analysis comparing the 2.0-mm locking plate system with the 2.0-mm nonlocking plate system in treatment of mandible fractures. J Craniofac Surg 25(6):2094–2097. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000001018 CrossRefPubMed

22.

Parmar BS, Makwana KG, Patel AM, Tandel RC, Shah J (2014) Use of a single 2.0-mm locking AO reconstruction titanium plate in linear, non-comminuted, mandible fractures. Ann Maxillofac Surg 4(1):51–54CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Ellis E 3rd (1993) Treatment of mandibular angle fractures using the AO reconstruction plate. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 51(3):250–254 discussion 255CrossRefPubMed

24.

Scolozzi P, Jaques B (2008) Intraoral open reduction and internal fixation of displaced mandibular angle fractures using a specific ad hoc reduction-compression forceps: a preliminary study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 106(4):497–501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2008.01.018 CrossRefPubMed

25.

Sugar AW, Gibbons AJ, Patton DW, Silvester KC, Hodder SC, Gray M, Snooks H, Watkins A (2009) A randomised controlled trial comparing fixation of mandibular angle fractures with a single miniplate placed either transbuccally and intra-orally, or intraorally alone. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 38(3):241–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2008.11.001 CrossRefPubMed

Title: Evaluation of different stable internal fixation in unfavorable mandible fractures under finite element analysis
Authors: Cleverson Patussi
Laurindo Moacir Sassi
Rafael Cruz
Guilherme Klein Parise
Delson Costa
Nelson Luís Barbosa Rebellato
Publication date: 01-09-2019
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery / Issue 3/2019
Print ISSN: 1865-1550
Electronic ISSN: 1865-1569
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10006-019-00774-1

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Evaluation of different stable internal fixation in unfavorable mandible fractures under finite element analysis

Abstract

Introduction

Material and Methods

Results

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Introduction

Material and Methods

Results

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 3/2019

Surgical ciliated cyst after maxillary orthognathic surgery: a literature review and case report

The expression of melanoma-associated antigen A (MAGE-A) in oral squamous cell carcinoma: an evaluation of the significance for tumor prognosis

Lingual anesthesia of the lower anterior teeth, which technique is better?

Myiasis in patients with oral squamous cell carcinoma—a systematic review and protocol for management

A prospective comparative clinical study on modified screw retained arch bar (SRAB) and conventional Erich’s arch bar (CEAB)

Submental intubation versus tracheostomy in maxillofacial fractures