skip to main content
10.1145/3460238.3460266acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicbetConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Finite Element Analysis of Open Reduction Internal Fixation for Mandible Fracture

Published:20 July 2021Publication History

ABSTRACT

The mandible or jawbone is the largest, strongest and lowest bone in the human face. It is the only movable bone of the skull. Patients who have a fracture of the mandibular bone will have the difficulty in articulation and mastication. Treatment of the mandible fracture includes immobilization with fixation. Modification and design of the fixation may affect the outcome of the reduction. The objective of this project is to design affordable, and low-cost with optimization of various designs of internal fixation on the mandibular bone. Simulation using Finite element method (FEM) simulation software was carried to know the quality of the internal fixation tools design. The Poly-L-lactic acid (PLLA) and titanium material had been tested and simulated, the stress on the bone and plated have been recorded. Resorbable A-shape condylar plate (ACP) being was used to hold the broken pieces of the skeleton together. Dimension modification on the plate being done to reduce stress concentration on mandibular bone and the plate. By comparing simulation between both material, This project successfully reduced stress on mandibular bone up to 15.41% and stress on plate up to 52.50%. Simulation results showed that PLLA material having better characteristics as an internal fixation plate compared to titanium alloy.

References

  1. Khiabani, K. et al. 2018. Effect of different miniplate osteosynthesis in different mandibular angle fracture patterns on bite force: A 3D finite element analysis, Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Medicine, and Pathology, 30(4), pp. 324–329. doi: 10.1016/j.ajoms.2018.02.014.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Ho.W. Yue 2020. Mandible Fracture, StatPearls Publishing LLC.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Lin, Fu-Yu. 2017. Mandibular Fracture Patterns at a Medical Center in Central Taiwan, Medicine: December 2017 - Volume 96 - Issue 51 - p e9333 Wolters Kluwer Health, IncGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Amin R. 2014. Treatment of Mandibular Fractures by Two Perpendicular Mini-Plates Iranian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology. US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Alaa S.Mahdi et.al. 2017. Measurement of Mandible Body Height in Male and Female of Iraqi Sample Using Panoramic Radiograph, Medical Journal of Babylon 2017. Volume 14, Issue 2, Pages 374 -381Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Kuntjoro.W. 2005. A Introduction to the Finite Element Method Mc Graw-Hill Education(Asia) (January 3, 2005)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Ramos, A. et al. 2011. Straight, semi-anatomic and anatomic TMJ implants: The influence of condylar geometry and bone fixation screws, Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery. Elsevier Ltd, 39(5), pp. 343–350. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2010.07.006.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Nagasao, T. et al. 2010. A comparison of stresses in implantation for grafted and plate-and- screw mandible reconstruction. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology and Endodontology. Elsevier Inc., 109(3), pp. 346–356. doi: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2009.10.009.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Korkmaz, H. H. 2007. Evaluation of different miniplates in fixation of fractured human mandible with the finite element method., Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology and Endodontology. 103(6), p. e1. doi: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2006.12.016.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Sigua-Rodriguez, E. A. 2019. Comparative evaluation of different fixation techniques for sagittal split ramus osteotomy in 10 mm advancements. Part two: Finite element analysis’, Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery. 47. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2019.01.007Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Wu, C. H. et al. 2017 Biomechanical evaluation of a novel hybrid reconstruction plate for mandible segmental defects: A finite element analysis and fatigue testing, Journal of Cranio- Maxillofacial Surgery. Elsevier Ltd, 45(10), pp. 1671–1680. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2017.07.010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. M.Z. Martini , 2006 Epidemiology of Mandibular Fractures Treated in a Brazilian Level I Trauma Public Hospital in the City of São Paulo, Brazil Brazilian Dental Journal · February 2006Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Rafal Z. 2019. Comparison of Titanium and Bioresorbable Plates in “A” Shape Plate Properties – Finite Element Analysis Materials (Basel) 2019 Apr 3;12(7):1110.doi: 10.3390/ma12071110Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Datarkar, A. et al. 2019. An in-vitro evaluation of a novel design of miniplate for fixation of fracture segments in the transition zone of parasymphysis-body region of mandible using finite element analysis, Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery. Elsevier Ltd, 47(1), pp. 99–105. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2018.11.004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Kozakiewicz, M. and Świniarski, J. 2017. Finite element analysis of newly introduced plates for mandibular condyle neck fracture treatment by open reduction and rigid fixation, Dental and Medical Problems, 54(4), pp. 319–326. doi: 10.17219/dmp/78913.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Ahmed, S. S. et al. 2017. Role of 1.5 mm microplates in treatment of symphyseal fracture of mandible: A stress analysis based comparative study’, Journal of Oral Biology and Craniofacial Research. Craniofacial Research Foundation, 7(2), pp. 119–122. doi: 10.1016/j.jobcr.2017.03.009.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. C. Ferretti. 2008. A prospective trial of poly-L-lactic acid/ polyglycolic acid copolymer plates and screws for internal fixation of mandibular fractures’. South Africa: Elsevier Ltd on behalf of International Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons, pp. 242–248.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    ICBET '21: Proceedings of the 2021 11th International Conference on Biomedical Engineering and Technology
    March 2021
    200 pages
    ISBN:9781450387897
    DOI:10.1145/3460238

    Copyright © 2021 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 20 July 2021

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format .

View HTML Format