0
Research Papers

In Vitro Mechanical Evaluation of Mandibular Bone Transport Devices

[+] Author and Article Information
Uriel Zapata

Mechanical Engineering Department,
EAFIT University,
Medellin 050022, Colombia
e-mail: uzapata@eafit.edu.co

Ikuya Watanabe

Department of Dental and Biomedical
Materials Science,
Nagasaki University Graduate School of
Biomedical Science,
Nagasaki 852-8588, Japan

Lynne A. Opperman, Paul C. Dechow

Baylor College of Dentistry,
Texas A&M University,
Dallas, TX 75246

Timothy Mulone

Craniotech ACR Devices,
Dallas, TX 75214

Mohammed E. Elsalanty

College of Dental Medicine,
Georgia Regents University,
Augusta, GA 30912

1Corresponding author.

Manuscript received September 11, 2013; final manuscript received January 20, 2014; published online March 7, 2014. Assoc. Editor: Rita M. Patterson.

J. Med. Devices 8(2), 021004 (Mar 07, 2014) (8 pages) Paper No: MED-13-1208; doi: 10.1115/1.4026561 History: Received September 11, 2013; Revised January 20, 2014

Bone transport distraction osteogenesis (BTDO) is a surgical procedure that has been used over the last 30 years for the correction of segmental defects produced mainly by trauma and oncological resections. Application of BTDO has several clinical advantages over traditional surgical techniques. Over the past few years, several BTDO devices have been introduced to reconstruct mandibular bone defects. Based on the location and outline of the defect, each device requires a uniquely shaped reconstruction plate. To date, no biomechanical evaluations of mandibular BTDO devices have been reported in the literature. The present study evaluated the mechanical behavior of three different shaped prototypes of a novel mandibular bone transport reconstruction plate and its transport unit for the reconstruction of segmental bone defects of the mandible by using numerical models complemented with mechanical laboratory tests to characterize strength, fatigue, and stability. The strength test evaluated device failures under extreme loads and was complemented with optimization procedures to improve the biomechanical behavior of the devices. The responses of the prototypes were characterized to improve their design and identify weak and strong regions in order to avoid posterior device failure in clinical applications. Combinations of the numerical and mechanical laboratory results were used to compare and validate the models. In addition, the results remark the importance of reducing the number of animals used in experimental tests by increasing computational and in vitro trials.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

(a) Basic configuration of the BTRP device. (b) Finite element model of the BTRP device.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Three bone transport reconstruction plate prototypes. (a) BTRP-01 straight device recommended for the mandibular ramus. (b) BTRP-02 L shaped device suggested for the mandibular body. (c) BTRP-03 curved device advised for the mandibular symphysis.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Finite element models of the three BTRP devices series including von Mises stress distributions. (a) Straight BTRP-01 affected by 50 N load, (b) L shaped BTRP-02 affected by 50 N load, and (c) curve-shaped BTRP-03 affected by 200 N load. (d) Transport disk unit affected by a 200 N load effect.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Mechanical evaluation of BTRP devices series. (a) Tension test of straight devices, (b) local stability test of shielded transport units, (c) bending test of L-shaped devices, and (d) bending test of a curved devices.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Mechanical deformation of the BTRP devices series tested in the laboratory. (a) Deformation of straight MTRP devices and a standard titanium plate tested under tension load in N, (b) deformation of L-shaped BTRP-02 devices tested under vertical load in a bending test, and (c) deformation of a curved BTRP-03 device under vertical load in a bending test.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Microstrain (με = m/m*(1/1,000,000)) measures recorded at the strain gauges positioned on the BTRP devices. (a) Microstrain recorded on three BTRP-02 L-shaped devices tested on a bending test with a 50 N load. (b) Microstrain recorded on three BTRP-03 curved devices during a bending test with maximum applied load of 200 N.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Principal stress patterns after optimization process applied to BTRP-02 device and its transport unit case

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In