The Mandible can be damaged by pathological factors, tumors, trauma, infection, and needs a surgical operation for reconstruction and restoring function. There are different methods for the reconstruction of mandible. Based on the surgical approach, primary reconstruction of mandible by reconstruction plate after resection is necessary for maintaining mandibular symmetric and esthetic of the lower third of the face. A finite element model of mandible and masticatory muscles was produced from a normal person (male with 35-year-old). The normal model was resected from the left sixth tooth to the second tooth. The pathological model was reconstructed in different conditions by macro plate. Different conditions were analyzed and compared based on bite force on right fifth tooth, stress developed on screws and macro plate. The finite element analysis results showed that maximum bite force and lower stress on screws were seen in the pathological model (condition 5) when one macro plate and six screws were inserted in the mid-body. The findings showed that the use of two macro plates causes lower stress on it than when we use one. Use of one macro plate and six screws is the best choice in mandibular immobilization which decrease the stress applied on bone and increase the bite force. Because of less stress developed on macro plates and screws, use of two macro plates or one macro plate in mid-body area are also preferred.
WagnerJDWagnerJPWagnerSA. Mandibular defect reconstruction utilizing preoperative 3D modeling, plate pre-bending and a novel triad graft: a case report. Stomatol Dis Sci2017; 1: 97–102.
2.
Jędrusik-PawłowskaMKromka-SzydekMKatraM, et al. Mandibular reconstruction--biomechanical strength analysis (FEM) based on a retrospective clinical analysis of selected patients. Acta Bioeng Biomech2013; 15: 23–31.
3.
WongRCTidemanHKinL, et al. Biomechanics of mandibular reconstruction: a review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg2010; 39: 313–319.
4.
KargarnejadSGhalichiFPourgol MohammadM, et al. Improving the biomechanical performance of screws fixation in a customized mandibular reconstruction prosthesis based on reliability measure. J Craniomaxillofac Res2021; 7: 195–202.
5.
LeeSGohBTTidemanH, et al. Modular endoprosthesis for mandibular body reconstruction: a clinical, micro-CT and histologic evaluation in eight Macaca fascicularis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg2009; 38: 40–47.
6.
HeadCAlamDSercarzJA, et al. Microvascular flap reconstruction of the mandible: a comparison of bone grafts and bridging plates for restoration of mandibular continuity. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg2003; 129: 48–54.
7.
PeacockZSAfsharSLukasSJ, et al. Customized repair of fractured mandibular reconstruction plates. J Oral Maxillofac Surg2012; 70: e563–e573.
8.
SchmokerRSpiesslBMathysR. A total mandibular plate to bridge large defects of the mandible. In: SpiesslB (ed.) New concepts in maxillofacial bone surgery. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 1976, pp.156–159.
9.
KhiabaniKKeyhanSORazmdidehR, et al. Effect of different miniplate osteosynthesis in different mandibular angle fracture patterns on bite force: a 3D finite element analysis. J Oral Maxillofac Surg Med Pathol2018; 30: 324–329.
10.
ShenYSunJLiJ, et al. Special considerations in virtual surgical planning for secondary accurate maxillary reconstruction with vascularised fibula osteomyocutaneous flap. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg2012; 65: 893–902.
11.
HararahMKStokesWAJonesBL, et al. Nomogram for preoperative prediction of nodal extracapsular extension or positive surgical margins in oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma. Oral Oncol2018; 83: 73–80.
12.
CostaFWBezerraMFRibeiroTR, et al. Biomechanical analysis of titanium plate systems in mandibular condyle fractures: a systematized literature review. Acta Cir Bras2012; 27: 424–429.
13.
WirthAJMüllerRvan LentheGH. Computational analyses of small endosseous implants in osteoporotic bone. Eur Cell Mater2010; 20: 58–71.
14.
BujtárPSándorGKBojtosA, 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: 301–309.
15.
ConsuelaFDorianaAFMoldoveanuB, et al. Current status of finite element analysis based studies on optimal dental implant length and diameter in the posterior mandible bone: a review of the literature. J Dent Res Prac2019; 1: 27–31.
16.
WangHJiBJiangW, et al. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of mechanical stress in symphyseal fractured human mandible reduced with miniplates during mastication. J Oral Maxillofac Surg2010; 68: 1585–1592.
17.
ArbagHKorkmazHHOzturkK, et al. Comparative evaluation of different miniplates for internal fixation of mandible fractures using finite element analysis. J Oral Maxillofac Surg2008; 66: 1225–1232.
18.
KorkmazHH. Evaluation of different miniplates in fixation of fractured human mandible with the finite element method. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod2007; 103: e1–13.
19.
KhiabaniKHemmatSKeyhanS, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of bite force after reduction and fixation of different mandibular angle fracture patterns with different miniplate osteosynthesis using the finite element analysis. Jundishapur Sci Med J2015; 14: 323–332.
20.
ChoyHTanPChoyK. Finite element analysis of open reduction internal fixation for mandible fracture. In: 2021 11th international conference on biomedical engineering and technology, Tokyo, 2021, pp.181–187. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
21.
KavanaghEPFrawleyCKearnsG, et al. Use of finite element analysis in presurgical planning: treatment of mandibular fractures. Ir J Med Sci2008; 177: 325–331.
22.
StansfieldEParkerJO’HigginsP. A sensitivity study of human mandibular biting simulations using finite element analysis. J Archaeol Sci Rep2018; 22: 420–432.
23.
WidmalmSEEricssonSG. Maximal bite force with centric and eccentric load. J Oral Rehabil1982; 9: 445–450.
24.
SchallerAVoigtCHuempfner-HierlH, et al. Transient finite element analysis of a traumatic fracture of the zygomatic bone caused by a head collision. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg2012; 41: 66–73.
25.
GearAJApasovaESchmitzJP, et al. Treatment modalities for mandibular angle fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg2005; 63: 655–663.
26.
VermaTPKumathalliKIJainV, et al. Bite force recording devices - a review. J Clin Diagn Res2017; 11: ze01–ze05.
27.
SanoHCiucchiBMatthewsWG, et al. Tensile properties of mineralized and demineralized human and bovine dentin. J Dent Res1994; 73: 1205–1211.
28.
CraigRGPeytonFA. Elastic and mechanical properties of human dentin. J Dent Res1958; 37: 710–718.
29.
Pereira-FilhoVAda SilvaBNNunes ReisJM, et al. Effect of the number of screws on the stability of locking mandibular reconstruction plates. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg2013; 42: 732–735.
30.
Schuller-GötzburgPForteTPomwengerW, et al. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of maxillary sinus floor augmentation with optimal positioning of a bone graft block. Symmetry2018; 10: 33.
31.
OguzYUckanSOzdenAU, et al. Stability of locking and conventional 2.0-mm miniplate/screw systems after sagittal split ramus osteotomy: finite element analysis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod2009; 108: 174–177.
32.
BujtárPSimonovicsJVáradiK, et al. The biomechanical aspects of reconstruction for segmental defects of the mandible: a finite element study to assess the optimisation of plate and screw factors. J Craniomaxillofac Surg2014; 42: 855–862.
33.
KimuraANagasaoTKanekoT, et al. Adaquate fixation of plates for stability during mandibular reconstruction. J Craniomaxillofac Surg2006; 34: 193–200.
