The aim of this study was to assess through biomechanical testing if different synthetic materials used to fabricate test specimens have a different biomechanical behavior in comparison with other materials when simulating in vitro load resistance of a fixation method established for sagittal split ramus osteotomy (SSRO). Thirty synthetic and standardized human hemimandible replicas with SSRO were divided into three groups of 10 samples each. Group A—ABS plastic; Group B—polyamide; and Group C—polyurethane. These were fixated with three bicortical position screws (16 mm in length, 2.0-mm system) in an inverted L pattern using perforation guide and 5-mm advancement. Each sample was submitted to linear vertical load, and load strength values were recorded at 1, 3, 5, 7, and 10 mm of displacement. The means and standard deviation were compared using the analysis of variance (p < 0.05) and the Tukey test. A tendency for lower values was observed in Group B in comparison with Groups A and C. At 3 and 5 mm of displacement, a difference between Groups A and C was found in comparison with Group B (p < 0.05). At 7 and 10 mm of displacement, a difference was found among the three groups, in which Group C showed the highest values and Group B the lowest (p < 0.05). Taking into consideration the results obtained and the behavior of each material used as a substrate, significant differences occurred among the materials when compared among them.
Van SickelsJERichardsonDAStability of orthognathic surgery: a review of rigid fixationBr J Oral Maxillofac Surg1996344279–285
2.
BrasileiroBFGrempelRGAmbrosanoGMPasseriLAAn in vitro evaluation of rigid internal fixation techniques for sagittal split ramus osteotomies: advancement surgeryJ Oral Maxillofac Surg2009674809–817
3.
BrasileiroBFGrotta-GrempelRAmbrosanoGMPasseriLAAn in vitro evaluation of rigid internal fixation techniques for sagittal split ramus osteotomies: setback surgeryJ Oral Maxillofac Surg2012704941–951
4.
FoleyWLFrostDEPaulinWBJrTuckerMRInternal screw fixation: comparison of placement pattern and rigidityJ Oral Maxillofac Surg1989477720–723
5.
KimHCEssakiSKameyamaTComparison of screw placement patterns on the rigidity of the sagittal split ramus osteotomy: technical noteJ Craniomaxillofac Surg199523154–56
6.
HammerBEttlinDRahnBPreinJStabilization of the short sagittal split osteotomy: in vitro testing of different plate and screw configurationsJ Craniomaxillofac Surg1995235321–324
7.
Scaf de MolonRde ÁvilaÉDScarteziniGR, et al. In vitro comparison of 1.5 mm vs. 2.0 mm screws for fixation in the sagittal split osteotomyJ Craniomaxillofac Surg2011398574–577
8.
ArdaryWCTracyDJBrownridgeGW 2nd, UrataMMComparative evaluation of screw configuration on the stability of the sagittal split osteotomyOral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol1989682125–129
9.
MurphyMTHaugRHBarberJEAn in vitro comparison of the mechanical characteristics of three sagittal ramus osteotomy fixation techniquesJ Oral Maxillofac Surg1997555489–494, discussion 494–495
BouwmanJPBTuinzingDBKostensePJA comparative in vitro study on fixation of sagittal split osteotomies with Würzburg screws, Champy miniplates, and Biofix (biodegradable) rodsInt J Oral Maxillofac Surg199423146–48
12.
SchwimmerAGreenbergAMKummerFKaynarAThe effect of screw size and insertion technique on the stability of the mandibular sagittal split osteotomyJ Oral Maxillofac Surg199452145–48
13.
KohnDHRichmondEMDootzERFeinbergSEPietrzakWSIn vitro comparison of parameters affecting the fixation strength of sagittal split osteotomiesJ Oral Maxillofac Surg199553121374–1383, discussion 1383–1385
14.
TharanonWComparison between the rigidity of bicortical screws and a miniplate for fixation of a mandibular setback after a simulated bilateral sagittal split osteotomyJ Oral Maxillofac Surg19985691055–1058
15.
FoleyWLBeckmanTWIn vitro comparison of screw versus plate fixation in the sagittal split osteotomyInt J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg199273147–151
16.
UckanSSchwimmerAKummerFGreenbergAMEffect of the angle of the screw on the stability of the mandibular sagittal split ramus osteotomy: a study in sheep mandiblesBr J Oral Maxillofac Surg2001394266–268
17.
AnuculBWaitePDLemonsJEIn vitro strength analysis of sagittal split osteotomy fixation: noncompression monocortical plates versus bicortical position screwsJ Oral Maxillofac Surg199250121295–1299
18.
ArmstrongJELapointeHJHoggNJKwokADPreliminary investigation of the biomechanics of internal fixation of sagittal split osteotomies with miniplates using a newly designed in vitro testing modelJ Oral Maxillofac Surg2001592191–195
19.
TrivellatoAEPasseriLAEvaluation of osteotomy fixation changing the number, the extension and the location of the platesBr J Oral Maxillofac Surg2006445377–381
20.
SilvaJVLGouveiaMFSanta BarbaraAMeurerEZavagliaCACRapid prototyping applications in the treatment of craniomaxillofacial deformities–utilization of bioceramicsKey Eng Mater200416687–690
21.
Van SickelsJEPetersonGPHolmsSHaugRHAn in vitro comparison of an adjustable bone fixation systemJ Oral Maxillofac Surg200563111620–1625
22.
SatoFRAsprinoLConsaniSde MoraesMComparative biomechanical and photoelastic evaluation of different fixation techniques of sagittal split ramus osteotomy in mandibular advancementJ Oral Maxillofac Surg2010681160–166
23.
Ribeiro-JuniorPDMagro-FilhoOShastriKAPapageorgeMBIn vitro biomechanical evaluation of the use of conventional and locking miniplate/screw systems for sagittal split ramus osteotomyJ Oral Maxillofac Surg2010684724–730
24.
ZizelmannCHammerBGellrichNCKokemüllerHBormannKHRohnerDIn vitro biomechanical comparison of the effect of pattern, inclination, and size of positional screws on load resistance for bilateral sagittal split osteotomyJ Oral Maxillofac Surg20116951458–1463
25.
AymachZNeiHKawamuraHBellWBiomechanical evaluation of a T-shaped miniplate fixation of a modified sagittal split ramus osteotomy with buccal step, a new technique for mandibular orthognathic surgeryOral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod2011111158–63
26.
OchsMWBicortical screw stabilization of sagittal split osteotomiesJ Oral Maxillofac Surg200361121477–1484
27.
ObeidGLindquistCCOptimal placement of bicortical screws in sagittal split-ramus osteotomy of mandibleOral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol1991716665–669
28.
CordeyJIntroduction: basic concepts and definitions in mechanicsInjury20003102 S-B1–13
29.
BaumgartEStiffness—an unknown world of mechanical science?Injury20003102 S-B14–23
30.
Vieira e OliveiraTRPasseriLAMechanical evaluation of different techniques for symphysis fracture fixation—an in vitro polyurethane mandible studyJ Oral Maxillofac Surg2011696e141–e146
31.
AskelandDRPhuléPPThe Science and Engineering of Materials 5th edToronto, ON CanadaCengage Learning2006198
32.
BosisioMRTalmantMSkalliWLaugierPMittonDApparent Young's modulus of human radius using inverse finite-element methodJ Biomech20074092022–2028
33.
OdinGSavoldelliCBouchardPOTillierYDetermination of Young's modulus of mandibular bone using inverse analysisMed Eng Phys2010326630–637
34.
CalvertKLTrumbleKPWebsterTJKirkpatrickLACharacterization of commercial rigid polyurethane foams used as bone analogs for implant testingJ Mater Sci Mater Med20102151453–1461
35.
ASTM International.ASTM Standard F1839–08 Standard Specification for Rigid Polyurethane Foam for Use as a Standard Material for Testing Orthopedic Devices and Instruments ASTM International; 2012
