Top

Published in:

01-05-2014 | Original Article

Locking versus nonlocking plates in mandibular reconstruction with fibular graft—a biomechanical ex vivo study

Authors: Susanne Trainotti, Stefan Raith, Marco Kesting, Stefan Eichhorn, Florian Bauer, Andreas Kolk, Bernd Lethaus, Frank Hölzle, Timm Steiner

Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations | Issue 4/2014

Abstract

Objectives

The main goal of the present study was to compare the biomechanical stability of locking plates and conventional miniplate combinations in human mandibles reconstructed with fibular grafts.

Materials and methods

A specially developed and well-proven testing device reproduced the in vivo loading conditions on the mandible. Cadaveric human mandibles (n = 12) reconstructed with harvested human fibular bone grafts were divided into two groups, and different osteosynthesis systems were applied using two lines of plates per osteotomy. On the test apparatus, the specimens were stressed to failure, and interfragmentary movement was monitored and quantified with a contact-free optical measurement system.

Results

The relevant interfragmentary movement results from a Euclidean summary calculation which considered all three spatial angles around the axes. Using values up to a maximum load of 300 N, the conventional six-hole miniplates (profile 1.0) had an average value of 7.45° ± 1.46°, and the locking six-hole plates (profile 1.3) had an average value of 12.16° ± 2.37° for rotational interfragmentary movement. The miniplate system exhibited a significantly superior performance in fixation compared to the fixed-angle system (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

According to these biomechanical experiments, both osteosynthesis devices provided sufficient stabilization at loads of up to 300 N. The six-hole miniplate system provided better stabilization of the osteotomy gap for mandibles reconstructed with fibular grafts.

Clinical relevance

The osteosynthesis system is essential for primary stability and the avoidance of pseudarthrosis formation. This study demonstrates that the miniplates provide sufficient stabilization and offers a method to improve fixation in reconstructed mandibles.

Hölzle F, Mohr C, Wolff K-D (2008) Reconstructive oral and maxillofacial surgery. Dtsch Arztebl Int 105:815–822PubMedCentralPubMed

Taylor GI, Miller GDH, Ham FJ (1975) The free vascularized bone graft. A clinical extension of microvascular techniques. Plast Reconstr Surg 55:533–544PubMedCrossRef

Hidalgo DA (1989) Fibula free flap: a new method of mandible reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 84:71–79PubMedCrossRef

Raveh J, Stich H, Sutter F, Greiner R (1984) Use of the titanium-coated hollow screw and reconstruction plate system in bridging of lower jaw defects. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 42:281–294PubMedCrossRef

Herford A, Ellis E III (1998) Use of a locking reconstruction bone plate/screw system for mandibular surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 56:1261–1265PubMedCrossRef

Hidalgo DA (1989) Titanium miniplate fixation in free flap mandible reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 23:498–507PubMedCrossRef

Kim M-R, Donoff RB (1992) Critical analysis of mandibular reconstruction using AO reconstruction plates. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 50:1152–1157PubMedCrossRef

Boyd JB, Mulholland RS, Davidson J, Gullane PJ, Rotstein LE, Brown DH, Freeman JE, Irish JC (1995) The free flap and plate in oromandibular reconstruction: long-term review and indications. Plast Reconstr Surg 95:1018–1028PubMedCrossRef

Spencer KR, Sizeland A, Taylor GI, Wiesenfeld D (1999) The use of titanium reconstruction plates in patients with oral cancer. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 28:288–290PubMedCrossRef

10.

Haug RH, Street CC, Goltz M (2002) Does plate adaptation affect stability? A biomechanical comparison of locking and nonlocking plates. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 60:1319–1326PubMedCrossRef

11.

Schupp W, Arzdorf M, Linke B, Gutwald R (2007) Biomechanical testing of different osteosynthesis systems for segmental resection of the mandible. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 65:924–930PubMedCrossRef

12.

Chiodo TA, Ziccardi VB, Janal M, Sabitini C (2006) Failure strength of 2.0 locking versus 2.0 conventional Synthes mandibular plates: a laboratory model. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 64:1475–1479PubMedCrossRef

13.

Doty JM, Pienkowski D, Goltz M, Haug RH, Valentino J, Arosarena OA (2004) Biomechanical evaluation of fixation techniques for bridging segmental mandibular defects. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 130:1388–1392PubMedCrossRef

14.

Döbele S, Horn C, Eichhorn S, Buchholtz A, Lenich A, Burgkart R, Nüssler AK, Lucke M, Andermatt D, Koch R, Stöckle U (2010) The dynamic locking screw (DLS) can increase interfragmentary motion on the near cortex of locked plating constructs by reducing the axial stiffness. Langenbecks Arch Surg 395:421–428PubMedCrossRef

15.

Ellis E 3rd, Graham J (2002) Use of a 2.0-mm locking plate/screw system for mandibular fracture surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 60:642–645PubMedCrossRef

16.

Perren S (2003) Backgrounds of the technology of internal fixators. Injury 34, no. Supplement 2:B1–B3CrossRef

17.

Frigg R (2003) Development of the locking compression plate. Injury 34, no. Supplement 2:B6–B10CrossRef

18.

Miller DL, Goswami T (2007) A review of locking compression plate biomechanics and their advantages as internal fixators in fracture healing. Clin Biomech 22:1049–1062CrossRef

19.

Schmal H, Strohm P, Jaeger M, Südkamp N (2011) Flexible fixation and fracture healing: do locked plating ‘internal fixators’ resemble external fixators? J Orthop Trauma 25:S15–S20PubMedCrossRef

20.

Gutwald R, Alpert B, Schmelzeisen R (2003) Principle and stability of locking plates. Kejo J Med 52:21–24CrossRef

21.

Wagner M (2003) General principles for the clinical use of the LCP. Injury - Int J Care Injured 34, no. B:31–42CrossRef

22.

Jewer DD, Boyd JB, Manktelow RT, Zuker RM, Rosen IB, Gullane PJ, Rotstein LE, Freeman JE (1989) Orofacial and mandibular reconstruction with the iliac crest free flap: a review of 60 cases and a new method of classification. Plast Reconstr Surg 84:391–403PubMedCrossRef

23.

Steiner T, Raith S, Eichhorn S, Döbele S, Trainotti S, Müller S, Eder M, Kovacs L, Burgkart R, Wolff K-D, Hölzle F (2012) Evaluation of a new optical measuring system for experiments on fractured human mandibles: a biomechanical feasibility study in maxillofacial surgery. Clin Oral Investig 16:1535–1542PubMedCrossRef

24.

Koolstra JH, Eijden TMGJ (2001) A method to predict muscle control in the kinematically and biomechanically indeterminate human masticatory system. J Biomech 34:1179–1188PubMedCrossRef

25.

Steinhauser E, Diehl P, Hadaller M, Schauwecker J, Busch R, Gradinger R, Mittelmeier W (2006) Biomechanical investigation of the effect of high hydrostatic pressure treatment on the mechanical properties of human bone. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 76:130–135PubMedCrossRef

26.

Shetty V, McBrearty D, Fourney M, Caputo AA (1995) Fracture line stability as a function of the internal fixation system: an in vitro comparison using a mandibular angle fracture model. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 53:791–802PubMedCrossRef

27.

Strackee S, Kroon F, Bos K (2001) Fixation methods in mandibular reconstruction using fibula grafts: a comparative study into the relative strength of three different osteosynthesis. Head Neck 23:1–7CrossRef

28.

Meyer C, Kahn J, Lambert A, Boutemy P, Wilk A (2000) Development of a static simulator of the mandible. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 28:278–286PubMedCrossRef

29.

Meyer C, Kahn J-L, Boutemi P, Wilk A (2002) Photoelastic analysis of bone deformation in the region of the mandibular condyle during mastication. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 30:160–169PubMedCrossRef

30.

Kimura A, Nagasao T, Kaneko T, Tamaki T, Miyamoto J, Nakajima T (2006) Adequate fixation of plates for stability during mandibular reconstruction. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 34:193–200PubMedCrossRef

31.

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

32.

Schuller-Gotzburg P, Pleschberger M, Rammerstorfer F, Krenkel C (2009) 3D-FEM and histomorphology of mandibular reconstruction with the titanium functionally dynamic bridging plate. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 38:1298–1305PubMedCrossRef

33.

Shaw R, Kanatas A, Lowe D, Stat C, Brown J, Rogers S, Vaughan D (2004) Comparison of miniplates and reconstruction plates in mandibular reconstruction. Head Neck 26:456–463PubMedCrossRef

34.

Militsakh O, Wallace D, Kriet J, Girod D, Olvera M, Tsue T (2004) Use of the 2.0-mm locking reconstruction plate in primary oromandibular reconstruction after composite resection. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 131:660–665PubMedCrossRef

35.

Farwell D, Kezirian E, Heydt J, Yueh B, Futran N (2006) Efficacy of small reconstruction plates in vascularized bone graft mandibular reconstruction. Head Neck 28:573–579PubMedCrossRef

36.

Knott P, Suh J, Nabili V, Sercarz J, Head C, Abemayor E, Blackwell K (2007) Evaluation of hardware-related complications in vascularized bone grafts with locking mandibular reconstruction plate fixation. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 133:1302–1306PubMedCrossRef

37.

Robey A, Spann M, McAuliff T, Meza J, Hollins R, Johnson P (2008) Comparison of miniplates and reconstruction plates in fibular flap reconstruction of the mandible. Plast Reconstr Surg 122:1733–1738PubMedCrossRef

38.

Sikes JWJ, Smith BR, Mukherjee DP, Coward KA (1998) Comparison of fixation strengths of locking head and conventional screws, in fracture and reconstruction models. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 56:468–473PubMedCrossRef

39.

Haug RH (1993) Effect of screw number on reconstruction plating. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 75:664–668PubMedCrossRef

40.

Champy M, Lodde JP, Jaeger JH, Wilk A (1976) Mandibular osteosynthesis according to the Michelet technique. Rev Stomatol Chir Maxillofac 77:569–576PubMed

41.

Haerle F, Champy M, Terry B (2009) Atlas of craniomaxillofacial osteosynthesis—microplates, miniplates, and screws, 2nd edn. Georg Thieme, Stuttgart, p. 4

Title: Locking versus nonlocking plates in mandibular reconstruction with fibular graft—a biomechanical ex vivo study
Authors: Susanne Trainotti
Stefan Raith
Marco Kesting
Stefan Eichhorn
Florian Bauer
Andreas Kolk
Bernd Lethaus
Frank Hölzle
Timm Steiner
Publication date: 01-05-2014
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations / Issue 4/2014
Print ISSN: 1432-6981
Electronic ISSN: 1436-3771
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-013-1105-1

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Locking versus nonlocking plates in mandibular reconstruction with fibular graft—a biomechanical ex vivo study

Abstract

Objectives

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Clinical relevance

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objectives

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Clinical relevance

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 4/2014

Antimicrobial penetration in a dual-species oral biofilm after noncontact brushing: an in vitro study

Biomechanical effects of the implant material and implant–abutment interface in immediately loaded small-diameter implants

A follow-up study of pulpotomies and root canal treatments performed under general anaesthesia

A novel three-dimensional analysis of standardized bone defects by means of confocal scanner and micro-computed tomography

Influence of CAD/CAM all-ceramic materials on cell viability, migration ability and adenylate kinase release of human gingival fibroblasts and oral keratinocytes

In vitro culture system for keratinocytes obtained from oral lichen planus lesions