Mustafa Ercüment ÖNDER, Emre ÇİMEN, Mine CAMBAZOĞLU

Kondil Kırıklarında Ortotropik Mandibula Modeli ile SonluEleman Analizleri Kullanılarak Titanyum ve Rezorbe OlabilenMiniplak Sistemlerinin Karşılaştırılması

Amaç: Mandibula kırıkları, yüz yaralanmalarının büyük birbölümünü oluşturur. Yayımlanan kapsamlı serilere göre, mandibularkırıkların% 17.5-52'si kondil kırıklarıdır. Plak ve vida sistemleriningeliştirilmesi ile açık redüksiyon ve internal rijit fiksasyon genişkabul gören bir yöntem haline gelmiştir. Bu amaçla, titanyumminiplak ve vida sistemleri veya rezorbe olabilen plak ve vidasistemleri kullanılmaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, ortotropik olarakelde edilen mandibula modelinde, titanyum plak ve vida sistemleriile rezorbe olabilen plak ve vida sistemlerinin, kondil kırıklarındakullanımını, sonlu eleman analizi (FEA) yöntemi ile karşılaştırmaktır. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Sonlu elemanlar analizi ile kemik, plak vekallusda oluşan stres değerleri ve Von Mises kuvvetleri ile plak vefragmanlardaki yer değiştirme miktarı incelenmiştir. Bulgular: Mandibular kondil kırıklarında, rezorbe olabilen plakalarınoluşan kuvvetlere karşı yeterli stabilite oluşturmadığı gözlenmiştir. Sonuç: Mandibula kondil kırıklarının açık tedavisinde titanyum plak ve vida sistemlerinin, rezorbe olabilen plak ve vida sistemlerindenmekanik olarak üstün olduğu gözlenmiştir. Bununla birlikte, bugörüşü tam olarak desteklemek için, farklı tasarımlarla üretilmiş yenirezorbe olabilen plakların kullanıldığı çalışmalar gerekmektedir.

A Comparison of Titanium and Resorbable Miniplate Systems Using Finite ElementAnalyses with the Orthotropic Mandibular Model in Condyle Fracture

Background: Mandibular fractures comprise a large portion offacial injuries. According to comprehensive series published,17.5 - 52% of mandibular fractures are condyle fractures. Withthe development of plate and screw systems, open reductionand internal rigid fixation have also become methods that areaccepted. Titanium miniplate and screw systems or resorbableplate and screw systems are used for this purpose. Thepurpose of this study is to compare the superiorities of titaniumplate and screw systems to the superiorities of resorbable plateand screw systems on an orthotropic mandibular model usingthe finite element analysis (FEA) method. Methods: With finite element analysis, stress values in bone,plate and callus and the amount of displacement in plates andfragments with Von Mises forces were examined. Results: It was observed that solitary resorbable plates do notgenerate adequate stability. Conclusion: It was observed that titanium plate and screwsystems were mechanically superior to resorbable plate and screw systems in the open treatment of mandibular condylefractures. However, to fully support this opinion, studies withdifferent designs using new resorbable plates are required.

PDF

___

1. Zachariades N, Mezitis M, Mourouzis C, Papadakis D, Spanou A. Fractures of the mandibular condyle: A review of 466 cases. Literature review, reflections on treatment and proposals. J Cranio-Maxillofacial Surg. 2006;34(7):421-432. doi:10.1016/J.JCMS.2006.07.854
2. Silvennoinen U, Iizuka T, Oikarinen K, Lindqvist C. Analysis of possible factors leading to problems after nonsurgical treatment of condylar fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1994;52(8):793-799. doi:10.1016/0278-2391(94)90219-4
3. Newman L. A clinical evaluation of the long-term outcome of patients treated for bilateral fracture of the mandibular condyles. - PubMed - NCBI. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1998;36(3):176-179. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9678880. Accessed July 31, 2019.
4. De Riu G, Gamba U, Anghinoni M, Sesenna E. A comparison of open and closed treatment of condylar fractures: a change in philosophy. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2001;30(5):384-389. doi:10.1054/ijom.2001.0103
5. Bonavolontà P, Dell’aversana Orabona G, Abbate V, et al. The epidemiological analysis of maxillofacial fractures in Italy: The experience of a single tertiary center with 1720 patients. J CranioMaxillofacial Surg. 2017;45(8):1319-1326. doi:10.1016/j.jcms.2017.05.011
6. Villarreal PM, Monje F, Junquera LM, Mateo J, Morillo AJ, González C. Mandibular condyle fractures: determinants of treatment and outcome. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2004;62(2):155-163. doi:10.1016/J.JOMS.2003.08.010
7. Boffano P, Roccia F, Zavattero E, et al. European Maxillofacial Trauma (EURMAT) project: A multicentre and prospective study. J CranioMaxillofacial Surg. 2015;43(1):62-70. doi:10.1016/J.JCMS.2014.10.011
8. Shiju M, Rastogi S, Gupta P, et al. Fractures of the mandibular condyle - Open versus closed - A treatment dilemma. J Cranio-Maxillofacial Surg. 2015;43(4):448-451. doi:10.1016/j.jcms.2015.01.012
9. Rastogi S, Sharma S, Kumar S, Reddy MP, Niranjanaprasad Indra B. Fracture of mandibular condyle - To open or not to open: An attempt to settle the controversy. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2015;119(6):608-613. doi:10.1016/j.oooo.2015.01.012
10.Cascone P, Spallaccia F, Fatone FMG, Rivaroli A, Saltarel A, Iannetti G. Rigid versus semirigid fixation for condylar fracture: experience with the external fixation system. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2008;66(2):265-271.
11.Zide MF, Kent JN. Indications for open reduction of mandibular condyle fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1983;41(2):89-98. doi:10.1016/0278- 2391(83)90214-8
12.Choi B-H, Kim K-N, Kim H-J, Kim M-K. Evaluation of condylar neck fracture plating techniques. J CranioMaxillofacial Surg. 1999;27(2):109-112. doi:10.1016/S1010-5182(99)80023-7
13.Haug RH, Peterson GP, Goltz M. A biomechanical evaluation of mandibular condyle fracture plating techniques. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2002;60(1):73- 80; discussion 80-1. doi:10.1053/joms.2002.29078
14.Tominaga K, Habu M, Khanal A, Mimori Y, Yoshioka I, Fukuda J. Biomechanical Evaluation of Different Types of Rigid Internal Fixation Techniques for Subcondylar Fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2006;64(10):1510-1516. doi:10.1016/j.joms.2006.03.038
15.Lauer G, Haim D, Proff P, et al. Plate osteosynthesis of the mandibular condyle. Ann Anat. 2007;189(4):412-417. doi:10.1016/j.aanat.2007.02.021
16.Suuronen R. Comparison of absorbable selfreinforced poly-L-lactide screws and metallic screws in the fixation of mandibular condyle osteotomies: an experimental study in sheep. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1991;49(9):989-995. doi:10.1016/0278- 2391(91)90065-t
17.Bessho K, Iizuka T, Murakami K. A bioabsorbable poly-L-lactide miniplate and screw system for osteosynthesis in oral and maxillofacial surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1997;55(9):941-5;discussion 945-6. doi:10.1016/s0278-2391(97)90065-3
18.Umstadt HE, Ellers M, Müller HH, Austermann KH. Functional reconstruction of the TM joint in cases of severely displaced fractures and fracture dislocation. J Cranio-Maxillofacial Surg. 2000;28(2):97-105. doi:10.1054/jcms.2000.0123
19.Kim YM, Lee JH. Clinical courses and degradation patterns of absorbable plates in facial bone fracture patients. Arch Craniofacial Surg. 2019;20(5):297- 303. doi:10.7181/acfs.2019.00409
20.Park Y-W. Bioabsorbable osteofixation for orthognathic surgery. Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;37(1):6. doi:10.1186/s40902-015-0003-7
21.Sukegawa S, Kanno T, Nagano D, Shibata A, Sukegawa-Takahashi Y, Furuki Y. The Clinical Feasibility of Newly Developed Thin Flat-Type Bioresorbable Osteosynthesis Devices for the Internal Fixation of Zygomatic Fractures: Is There a Difference in Healing Between Bioresorbable Materials and Titanium Osteosynthesis? J Craniofac Surg. 2016;27(8):2124-2129. doi:10.1097/SCS.0000000000003147
22.Meyer U, Vollmer D, Homann C, et al. Experimental and finite-element models for the assessment of mandibular deformation under mechanical loading. Mund Kiefer Gesichtschir. 2000;4(1):14-20. doi:10.1007/s100060050005
23.Chao CK, Hsu CC, Wang JL, Lin J. Increasing bending strength of tibial locking screws: Mechanical tests and finite element analyses. Clin Biomech. 2007;22(1):59-66. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2006.07.007
24.Korioth TWP, Romilly DP, Hannam AG. Threedimensional finite element stress analysis of the dentate human mandible. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1992;88(1):69-96. doi:10.1002/ajpa.1330880107
25.Putz R, Pabst R. Sobotta-Atlas of Human Anatomy: Head, Neck, Upper Limb, Thorax, Abdomen, Pelvis, Lower Limb; Two-volume set. 2006. http://125.234.102.146:8080/dspace/handle/DNUL IB_52011/4003. Accessed March 20, 2020.
26.Cox T, Kohn MW, Impelluso T. Computerized analysis of resorbable polymer plates and screws for the rigid fixation of mandibular angle fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2003;61(4):481-487; discussion 487-8. doi:10.1053/joms.2003.50094
27.Fernández JR, Gallas M, Burguera M, Viaño JM. A three-dimensional numerical simulation of mandible fracture reduction with screwed miniplates. J Biomech. 2003;36(3):329-337. doi:10.1016/S0021-9290(02)00416-5
28.Lovald ST, Wagner JD, Baack B. Biomechanical Optimization of Bone Plates Used in Rigid Fixation of Mandibular Fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009;67(5):973-985. doi:10.1016/j.joms.2008.12.032
29.Santler G, Kärcher H, Ruda C, Köle E. Fractures of the condylar process: Surgical versus nonsurgical treatment. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1999;57(4):392- 397. doi:10.1016/S0278-2391(99)90276-8
30.Haug RH, Assael LA. Outcomes of open versus closed treatment of mandibular subcondylar fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2001;59(4):370- 375. doi:10.1053/joms.2001.21868
31.Zide MF. Open reduction of mandibular condyle fractures. Indications and technique. Clin Plast Surg. 1989;16(1):69-76. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2924493. Accessed March 23, 2020.
32.Ziccardi VB, Schneider RE, Kummer FJ. Wurzburg lag screw plate versus four-hole miniplate for the treatment of condylar process fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1997;55(6):602-607. doi:10.1016/S0278-2391(97)90492-4
33.Jafari A, Shetty KS, Kumar M. Study of stress distribution and displacement of various craniofacial structures following application of transverse orthopedic forces - A threedimensional FEM study. Angle Orthod. 2003;73(1):12-20. doi:10.1043/0003- 3219(2003)073<0012:SOSDAD>2.0.CO;2
34.Vollmer D, Meyer U, Joos U, Vègh A, Piffkò J. Experimental and finite element study of a human mandible. J Cranio-Maxillofacial Surg. 2000;28(2):91-96. doi:10.1054/jcms.2000.0125
35.Ashman RB, Van Buskirk WC. The elastic properties of a human mandible. Adv Dent Res. 1987;1(1):64- 67. doi:10.1177/08959374870010011401
36.Throckmorton GS, Dechow PC. In vitro strain measurements in the condylar process of the human mandible. Arch Oral Biol. 1994;39(10):853- 867. doi:10.1016/0003-9969(94)90017-5
37.Ellis E, McFadden D, Simon P, Throckmorton G. Surgical complications with open treatment of mandibular condylar process fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2000;58(9):950-958. doi:10.1053/JOMS.2000.8734
38.Throckmorton GS, Ellis E, Hayasaki H. Masticatory motion after surgical or nonsurgical treatment for unilateral fractures of the mandibular condylar process. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2004;62(2):127-138. doi:10.1016/j.joms.2003.01.003
39.Claes LE, Heigele CA, Neidlinger-Wilke C, et al. Effects of mechanical factors on the fracture healing process. In: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 1998. doi:10.1097/00003086-199810001-00015
40.Dolanmaz D, Uckan S, Isik K, Saglam H. Comparison of stability of absorbable and titanium plate and screw fixation for sagittal split ramus osteotomy. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2004;42(2):127-132. doi:10.1016/S0266- 4356(03)00234-1
41.Ganesh VK, Ramakrishna K, Ghista DN. Biomechanics of bone-fracture fixation by stiffnessgraded plates in comparison with stainless-steel plates. Biomed Eng Online. 2005;4:46. doi:10.1186/1475-925X-4-46
42.Darwich MA, Albogha MH, Abdelmajeed A, Darwich K. Assessment of the Biomechanical Performance of 5 Plating Techniques in Fixation of Mandibular Subcondylar Fracture Using Finite Element Analysis. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016;74(4):794.e1-794.e8. doi:10.1016/j.joms.2015.11.021