In-silico study of type ‘B’ condylar head fractures and evaluating the influence of two positional screw distance in two-screw osteosynthesis construct
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online November, 2023
In-silico study of type ‘B’ condylar head fractures and evaluating the influence of two positional screw distance in two-screw osteosynthesis construct
Clinical fixation screws are common in clinical practices to fix mandibular condyle fractures. Evidence suggests significance of ‘working length’ that is, distance between proximal and distal fixation screws in proximity to the fracture in orthopaedic implant design. In pursuit of stable implant-bone construct, this study aims to investigate the biomechanical performance of each configuration considered in the study and provide an optimal working length between the screws for clinical reference. Finite element models of virtually designed broken condyle as type ‘B’ were simulated and analysed in ANSYS Workbench. Screws are implanted according to previous literature at five varied distances ‘d’ maintaining five different ratios with the fracture length ‘D’. Based on a literature review, boundary conditions, muscle traction forces and non-linear contacts were assigned to obtain precise results. Each case is considered an individual configuration and von Mises distribution, microstrain in bone, screw-bone interface micromotion and fracture dislocation were evaluated for all these configurations. Stress-shielding phenomenon is observed for maximum von Mises stresses in bone. Microstrain concentration was significant in cancellous bone in the vicinity of the screw around the fracture line. Configurations were compared based on the stress-strain along with micromotion to support the required amount of osseointegration between implant and bone. Presented data from all five conditions supported the assumption that under physiological loading conditions, the D3 configuration provided stability for fracture healing. Further research on screw shapes, diameters and material properties, or investigating the direction of forces within the screws could provide further insight into this topic.
UtheimNCJosefsenRNakstadPH, et al. Occipital condyle fracture and lower cranial nerve palsy after blunt head trauma – a literature review and case report. J Trauma Manag Outcomes2015; 9(1): 2–7.
2.
BanerjeeARoy ChowdhuryAMajumderS. Temporomandibular joint disorder and biomechanical simulation of the replacement: a literature review on various surgical and nonsurgical methods, and development of the finite element method approach in the treatment. J Eng Sci Med Diagn Ther2022; 5(2): 021005.
3.
SchöneggDMüllerGTBlumerM, et al. Two-versus three-screw osteosynthesis of the mandibular condylar head: a finite element analysis. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater2022; 127: 105077.
4.
TaoZSZhouWSTuKK, et al. Treatment study of distal femur for parathyroid hormone (1–34) and β-tricalcium phosphate on bone formation in critical-sized defects in osteopenic rats. J Craniomaxillofac Surg2015; 43(10): 2136–2143.
5.
PavlychukTChernogorskyiDChepurnyiY, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of type p condylar head osteosynthesis using conventional small-fragment screws reinforced by a patient specific two-component plate. Head Face Med2020; 16(1): 1–4.
6.
CorneliusCPAudigéLKunzC, et al. The comprehensive AOCMF classification system: mandible fractures-level 3 tutorial. Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr2014; 7(Suppl 1): 31–43.
7.
NeffAChossegrosCBlancJL, et al. Position paper from the IBRA symposium on surgery of the head – the 2nd international symposium for condylar fracture osteosynthesis, Marseille, France 2012. J Craniomaxillofac Surg2014; 42(7): 1234–1249.
8.
BernerTEssigHSchumannP, et al. Closed versus open treatment of mandibular condylar process fractures: a meta-analysis of retrospective and prospective studies. J Craniomaxillofac Surg2015; 43(8): 1404–1408.
9.
GuptaYIyerRDommetiVK, et al. Design of dental implant using design of experiment and topology optimization: a finite element analysis study. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine2021; 235(2): 157–166.
10.
DerfoufiLDelavalCGoudotP, et al. Complications of condylar fracture osteosynthesis. J Craniofac Surg2011; 22(4): 1448–1451.
11.
EllisEThrockmortonGS. Treatment of mandibular condylar process fractures: biological considerations. J Oral Maxillofac Surg2005; 63(1): 115–134.
12.
de JesusGPVazLGGabrielliMF, et al. Finite element evaluation of three methods of stable fixation of condyle base fractures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg2014; 43(10): 1251–1256.
13.
MeyerCKahnJLLambertA, et al. Development of a static simulator of the mandible. J Craniomaxillofac Surg2000; 28(5): 278–286.
14.
XinPJiangBDaiJ, et al. Finite element analysis of type B condylar head fractures and osteosynthesis using two positional screws. J Craniomaxillofac Surg2014; 42(5): 482–488.
15.
HoffmeierKLHofmannGOMückleyT. Choosing a proper working length can improve the lifespan of locked plates: a biomechanical study. Clin Biomech2011; 26(4): 405–409.
16.
EllisTBourgeaultCAKyleRF. Screw position affects dynamic compression plate strain in an in vitro fracture model. J Orthop Trauma2001; 15(5): 333–337.
17.
ChaoPConradBPLewisDD, et al. Effect of plate working length on plate stiffness and cyclic fatigue life in a cadaveric femoral fracture gap model stabilized with a 12-hole 2.4 mm locking compression plate. BMC Vet Res2013; 9: 1–7.
18.
RanaMChaudhuriABiswasJK, et al. Design of patient specific bone stiffness mimicking scaffold. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine2021; 235(12): 1453–1462.
19.
BanerjeeARanaMChakrabortyA, et al. Influence of implant parameters on biomechanical stability of TMJ replacement: a finite element analysis. Int J Artif Organs2022; 45(8): 715–721.
20.
ChakrabortyADattaPMajumderS, et al. Finite element and experimental analysis to select patient’s bone condition specific porous dental implant, fabricated using additive manufacturing. Comput Biol Med2020; 124: 103839.
21.
KolkANeffA. Long-term results of ORIF of condylar head fractures of the mandible: a prospective 5-year follow-up study of small-fragment positional-screw osteosynthesis (SFPSO). J Craniomaxillofac Surg2015; 43(4): 452–461.
22.
de ZeeMDalstraMCattaneoPM, et al. Validation of a musculo-skeletal model of the mandible and its application to mandibular distraction osteogenesis. J Biomech2007; 40(6): 1192–1201.
23.
SugiuraTYamamotoKHoritaS, et al. Micromotion analysis of different implant configuration, bone density, and crestal cortical bone thickness in immediately loaded mandibular full-arch implant restorations: a nonlinear finite element study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res2018; 20(1): 43–49.
24.
BiswasJKRoySRanaM, et al. A comparison of rigid, semi-rigid and flexible spinal stabilization devices: a finite element study. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine2019; 233(12): 1292–1298.
25.
AquilinaPChamoliUParrWC, et al. Finite element analysis of three patterns of internal fixation of fractures of the mandibular condyle. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg2013; 51(4): 326–331.
26.
RoySDasMChakrabortyP, et al. Optimal selection of dental implant for different bone conditions based on the mechanical response. Acta Bioeng Biomech2017; 19(2): 11–20.
27.
ChatterjeeSRoySMajumderS, et al. Biomechanical analysis to probe role of bone condition and subject weight in stiffness customization of femoral stem for improved periprosthetic biomechanical response. J Biomech Eng2020; 142(10): 101002.
28.
JoshiUKurakarM. Assessment of lingual stability in mandible fracture: monocortical versus bicortical fixation using FEM analysis. J Maxillofac Oral Surg2018; 17: 514–519.
29.
SchneiderMSeinigeCPillingE, et al. Ultrasound-aided resorbable osteosynthesis of fractures of the mandibular condylar base: an experimental study in sheep. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg2012; 50(6): 528–532.
30.
FangYGuZChenW. [X-ray and clinical characteristics in sagittal fracture of the mandibular condyle]. Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi2001; 36(4): 250–252.
31.
BiswasJKRoySPradhanR, et al. Effects of cervical disc replacement and anterior fusion for different bone conditions: a finite element study. Int J Multiscale Comput Eng2019; 17(4): 411–427.
32.
DayrellACPimentadeAraújoCTRochaRL, et al. Biomechanics of internal connection in mandibular implant-supported prosthesis under effect of loadings and number of implants: a 3D finite element analysis. Comput Biol Med2022; 148: 105755.
33.
WinterWKleinDKarlM. Micromotion of dental implants: basic mechanical considerations. J Med Eng2013; 2013: 265412.
34.
MoideenISMLimCTYeowRCH, et al. Finite element analysis of bone-prosthesis interface micromotion for cementless talar component fixation through critical loading conditions. Int J Numer Methods Biomed Eng2020; 36(3): e3310.
35.
DuyckJVandammeKGerisL, et al. The effect of micromotion on tissues surrounding immediately loaded implants. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng2005; 8(S1): 93–94.
36.
WagnerAKrachWSchichoK, et al. A 3-dimensional finite-element analysis investigating the biomechanical behavior of the mandible and plate osteosynthesis in cases of fractures of the condylar process. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod2002; 94(6): 678–686.
37.
BujtárPSándorGKBBojtosA, et al. Finite element analysis of the human mandible at 3 different stages of life. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod2010; 110(3): 301–309.
38.
KoolstraJHvan EijdenTM. Combined finite-element and rigid-body analysis of human jaw joint dynamics. J Biomech2005; 38(12): 2431–2439.
