Cargando…

Comparison of the mechanical properties of biodegradable and titanium osteosynthesis systems used in oral and maxillofacial surgery

To guide the selection of osteosynthesis systems, this study compared the mechanical properties of biodegradable and titanium osteosynthesis systems. SonicPins Rx and xG were subjected to pull-out tests. Additionally, 15 biodegradable (Inion CPS 2.0 and 2.5 mm; LactoSorb 2.0 mm; Macropore 2.0 mm; Po...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gareb, Barzi, Roossien, Charlotte C., van Bakelen, Nico B., Verkerke, Gijsbertus J., Vissink, Arjan, Bos, Ruud R. M., van Minnen, Baucke
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7584639/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33097757
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-75299-9
_version_ 1783599637426339840
author Gareb, Barzi
Roossien, Charlotte C.
van Bakelen, Nico B.
Verkerke, Gijsbertus J.
Vissink, Arjan
Bos, Ruud R. M.
van Minnen, Baucke
author_facet Gareb, Barzi
Roossien, Charlotte C.
van Bakelen, Nico B.
Verkerke, Gijsbertus J.
Vissink, Arjan
Bos, Ruud R. M.
van Minnen, Baucke
author_sort Gareb, Barzi
collection PubMed
description To guide the selection of osteosynthesis systems, this study compared the mechanical properties of biodegradable and titanium osteosynthesis systems. SonicPins Rx and xG were subjected to pull-out tests. Additionally, 15 biodegradable (Inion CPS 2.0 and 2.5 mm; LactoSorb 2.0 mm; Macropore 2.0 mm; Polymax 2.0 mm; BioSorb FX 2.0 mm; ResorbX 2.1 mm; Osteotrans-MX 2.0 mm with plate thicknesses 1.0 and 1.4 mm; SonicWeld Rx(plate)/Rx(pins), xG(plate)/Rx(pins) and xG(plate)/xG(pins) 2.1 mm without and with tapping the burr hole) and six titanium (CrossDrive (2006), CrossDrive (2018), MaxDrive; all 1.5 and 2.0 mm) straight, four-hole osteosynthesis systems were evaluated. All systems were subjected to tensile, bending and torsion tests. Pull-out loads of the SonicPins were comparable (P = 0.423). Titanium systems’ tensile loads were higher than biodegradable systems (P < 0.001). CrossDrive (2018) and MaxDrive systems’ tensile and torsional stiffness were lower, accompanied with higher ductility, than corresponding CrossDrive (2006) systems (P < 0.001). Bending stiffness of 1.5 mm titanium systems was comparable to, and of the 2.0 mm systems higher than, all biodegradable systems (P < 0.001). Regarding biodegradable systems, Inion CPS 2.5 mm had highest tensile load and torsional stiffness, SonicWeld 2.1 mm highest tensile stiffness, and BioSorbFX 2.0 mm highest bending stiffness (P < 0.001). On the basis of the results of this study, the CrossDrive (2018) and MaxDrive 1.5 mm titanium systems are recommended for midface fractures (e.g., zygomatic or maxillary fractures) and osteotomies (e.g., Le Fort I osteotomy), and the CrossDrive (2018) and MaxDrive 2.0 mm titanium systems for mandibular fractures and osteotomies when a titanium osteosynthesis system is used. When there is an indication for a biodegradable osteosynthesis system, the SonicWeld 2.1 mm or BioSorbFX 2.0 mm are recommended for midface fractures and osteotomies, and the Inion CPS 2.5 mm biodegradable system for mandibular osteotomies and non-load bearing mandibular fractures, especially when high torsional forces are expected (e.g., mandibular symphysis fractures).
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7584639
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Nature Publishing Group UK
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-75846392020-10-27 Comparison of the mechanical properties of biodegradable and titanium osteosynthesis systems used in oral and maxillofacial surgery Gareb, Barzi Roossien, Charlotte C. van Bakelen, Nico B. Verkerke, Gijsbertus J. Vissink, Arjan Bos, Ruud R. M. van Minnen, Baucke Sci Rep Article To guide the selection of osteosynthesis systems, this study compared the mechanical properties of biodegradable and titanium osteosynthesis systems. SonicPins Rx and xG were subjected to pull-out tests. Additionally, 15 biodegradable (Inion CPS 2.0 and 2.5 mm; LactoSorb 2.0 mm; Macropore 2.0 mm; Polymax 2.0 mm; BioSorb FX 2.0 mm; ResorbX 2.1 mm; Osteotrans-MX 2.0 mm with plate thicknesses 1.0 and 1.4 mm; SonicWeld Rx(plate)/Rx(pins), xG(plate)/Rx(pins) and xG(plate)/xG(pins) 2.1 mm without and with tapping the burr hole) and six titanium (CrossDrive (2006), CrossDrive (2018), MaxDrive; all 1.5 and 2.0 mm) straight, four-hole osteosynthesis systems were evaluated. All systems were subjected to tensile, bending and torsion tests. Pull-out loads of the SonicPins were comparable (P = 0.423). Titanium systems’ tensile loads were higher than biodegradable systems (P < 0.001). CrossDrive (2018) and MaxDrive systems’ tensile and torsional stiffness were lower, accompanied with higher ductility, than corresponding CrossDrive (2006) systems (P < 0.001). Bending stiffness of 1.5 mm titanium systems was comparable to, and of the 2.0 mm systems higher than, all biodegradable systems (P < 0.001). Regarding biodegradable systems, Inion CPS 2.5 mm had highest tensile load and torsional stiffness, SonicWeld 2.1 mm highest tensile stiffness, and BioSorbFX 2.0 mm highest bending stiffness (P < 0.001). On the basis of the results of this study, the CrossDrive (2018) and MaxDrive 1.5 mm titanium systems are recommended for midface fractures (e.g., zygomatic or maxillary fractures) and osteotomies (e.g., Le Fort I osteotomy), and the CrossDrive (2018) and MaxDrive 2.0 mm titanium systems for mandibular fractures and osteotomies when a titanium osteosynthesis system is used. When there is an indication for a biodegradable osteosynthesis system, the SonicWeld 2.1 mm or BioSorbFX 2.0 mm are recommended for midface fractures and osteotomies, and the Inion CPS 2.5 mm biodegradable system for mandibular osteotomies and non-load bearing mandibular fractures, especially when high torsional forces are expected (e.g., mandibular symphysis fractures). Nature Publishing Group UK 2020-10-23 /pmc/articles/PMC7584639/ /pubmed/33097757 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-75299-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Article
Gareb, Barzi
Roossien, Charlotte C.
van Bakelen, Nico B.
Verkerke, Gijsbertus J.
Vissink, Arjan
Bos, Ruud R. M.
van Minnen, Baucke
Comparison of the mechanical properties of biodegradable and titanium osteosynthesis systems used in oral and maxillofacial surgery
title Comparison of the mechanical properties of biodegradable and titanium osteosynthesis systems used in oral and maxillofacial surgery
title_full Comparison of the mechanical properties of biodegradable and titanium osteosynthesis systems used in oral and maxillofacial surgery
title_fullStr Comparison of the mechanical properties of biodegradable and titanium osteosynthesis systems used in oral and maxillofacial surgery
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of the mechanical properties of biodegradable and titanium osteosynthesis systems used in oral and maxillofacial surgery
title_short Comparison of the mechanical properties of biodegradable and titanium osteosynthesis systems used in oral and maxillofacial surgery
title_sort comparison of the mechanical properties of biodegradable and titanium osteosynthesis systems used in oral and maxillofacial surgery
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7584639/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33097757
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-75299-9
work_keys_str_mv AT garebbarzi comparisonofthemechanicalpropertiesofbiodegradableandtitaniumosteosynthesissystemsusedinoralandmaxillofacialsurgery
AT roossiencharlottec comparisonofthemechanicalpropertiesofbiodegradableandtitaniumosteosynthesissystemsusedinoralandmaxillofacialsurgery
AT vanbakelennicob comparisonofthemechanicalpropertiesofbiodegradableandtitaniumosteosynthesissystemsusedinoralandmaxillofacialsurgery
AT verkerkegijsbertusj comparisonofthemechanicalpropertiesofbiodegradableandtitaniumosteosynthesissystemsusedinoralandmaxillofacialsurgery
AT vissinkarjan comparisonofthemechanicalpropertiesofbiodegradableandtitaniumosteosynthesissystemsusedinoralandmaxillofacialsurgery
AT bosruudrm comparisonofthemechanicalpropertiesofbiodegradableandtitaniumosteosynthesissystemsusedinoralandmaxillofacialsurgery
AT vanminnenbaucke comparisonofthemechanicalpropertiesofbiodegradableandtitaniumosteosynthesissystemsusedinoralandmaxillofacialsurgery