SavedAdd your journal

Journals / EurAsian Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery / 2026 / Volume: 3 Issue: 4

THE EVALUATION OF THE TREATMENT OPTIONS WITH INTERMAXILLARY FIXATION SCREWS AND MINIPLATES IN BILATERAL MANDIBULAR FRACTURES BY FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS

SONLU ELEMAN ANALİZİ İLE BİLATERAL MANDİBULAR KIRIKLARDA INTERMAKSİLLER FİKSASYON VIDA VE MINİPLAKLARLA TEDAVİ SEÇENEKLERİNİN DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

Aytaç Gürsel0009-0006-3331-2707
Mustafa Ercüment Önder(KIRIKKALE UNIVERSITY, FACULTY OF DENTISTRY, DEPARTMENT OF CLINICAL SCIENCES, DEPARTMENT OF ORAL, DENTAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY)0000-0002-1488-616X
Mine Cambazoğlu(ANKARA UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-7886-0532
Pages
—
Publication Date
2024-12-24
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

It is observed that the amount of displacement is less in anterior fractures than it is in posterior fractures.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: The aim of this study is to assess the stress values and the amount of displacement (D) that occurs on the fracture line during the application of various numbers and ligation methods of intermaxillary fixation screws (IMFS) by using finite element analysis and to perform a comparison to the internal fixation technique with miniplates.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Results: Results of the analysis showed that the most successful fracture fixation models were the standard method of IMFS which is 4-point fixation (D:0,068 mm) or horizontal ligation (D:0,066 mm).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It is observed that the amount of displacement is less in anterior fractures than it is in posterior fractures.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Mandibular fracture · intermaxillary fixation · intermaxillary fixation screw

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study is to assess the stress values and the amount of displacement (D) that occurs on the fracture line during the application of various numbers and ligation methods of intermaxillary fixation screws (IMFS) by using finite element analysis and to perform a comparison to the internal fixation technique with miniplates. Material and Method: A three-dimensional model of the maxilla, mandible, and temporomandibular joint was created using the DICOM data obtained from Digital Volumetric Computed Tomography (DVCT). The nonhomogeneous bone structure was transferred to the model based on the Hounsfield Unit (HU) values obtained from DVCT. In the scenario created, a mandible having parasymphysis and corpus fractures together was modeled. IMFS and internal fixation methods was analyzed in eight different scenarios. Results: Results of the analysis showed that the most successful fracture fixation models were the standard method of IMFS which is 4-point fixation (D:0,068 mm) or horizontal ligation (D:0,066 mm). It is observed that the increase in the number of IMFS has no effect on fracture displacement or the reduction of the stress formed in the bone surrounding the screws. The analysis of internal fixation shows that increasing the number of plates and screws does not change the amount of displacement, but it is influential on the distribution of stresses. Conclusion: It has been observed that number of IMFS has no effect on fracture fixation and stress distribution. It is observed that the amount of displacement is less in anterior fractures than it is in posterior fractures.

Özet

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, sonlu eleman analizi kullanılarak intermaksiller fiksasyon vidası (IMFS) uygulamalarında farklı sayı ve bağlama yöntemlerinin kırık hattında oluşturduğu gerilme değerlerini ve yer değiştirme miktarını (D) değerlendirmek ve miniplaklarla yapılan internal fiksasyon tekniği ile karşılaştırma yapmaktır. Materyal ve Metod: Maksilla, mandibula ve temporomandibular eklemin üç boyutlu modeli, Dijital Volumetrik Bilgisayarlı Tomografi (DVBT) verilerinden elde edilen DICOM verileri kullanılarak oluşturulmuştur. Homojen olmayan kemik yapısı, DVBT'den elde edilen Hounsfield Birimi (HU) değerlerine dayanarak modele aktarılmıştır. Oluşturulan senaryoda, parasimfizis ile korpus kırıklarının birlikte bulunduğu bir mandibula modellenmiştir. IMFV ve internal fiksasyon yöntemleri sekiz farklı senaryoda analiz edilmiştir. Sonuçlar: Analiz sonuçları, en başarılı kırık fiksasyon modellerinin, 4 noktalı fiksasyon (D: 0,068 mm) veya yatay bağlama (D: 0,066 mm) olan standart IMFV yöntemi olduğunu göstermiştir. IMFV sayısının artışının, kırık deplasman miktarının veya vida etrafındaki kemikte oluşan gerilmenin azalması üzerinde bir etkisi olmadığı gözlemlenmiştir. Internal fiksasyon analizinde, plak ve vida sayısının artırılmasının deplasman miktarını değiştirmediği, ancak gerilmelerin dağılımı üzerinde etkili olduğu görülmüştür. Sonuç: IMFV sayısının, kırığın fikse edilmesi ve gerilme dağılımı üzerinde bir etkisi olmadığı görülmüştür. Ayrıca Anterior kırıklarda deplasman miktarının, posterior kırıklara göre daha az olduğu gözlemlenmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Gürsel, A., Önder, M. E., Cambazoğlu, M. (2024). THE EVALUATION OF THE TREATMENT OPTIONS WITH INTERMAXILLARY FIXATION SCREWS AND MINIPLATES IN BILATERAL MANDIBULAR FRACTURES BY FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS. EurAsian Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Volume: 3 Issue: 4. https://ajindex.com/articles/1629639

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (22)

  1. Champy M, Loddé JP, Schmitt R, et al. Mandibular osteosynthesis by miniature screwed plates via a buccal approach. J Maxillofac Surg. 1978;6(C):14-21. doi:10.1016/S0301-0503(78)80062-9.
  2. McGinn JD, Fedok FG. Techniques of maxillary-mandibular fixation. Oper Tech Otolaryngol - Head Neck Surg. 2008;19(2):117- 122. doi:10.1016/j.otot.2008.04.003.
  3. Qureshi AA, Reddy UK, Warad NM, et al. Intermaxillary fixation screws versus Erich arch bars in mandibular fractures: A comparative study and review of literature. Ann Maxillofac Surg. 2016;6(1):25-30. doi:10.4103/2231-0746.186129.
  4. Gibbons AJ, Hodder SC. A self-drilling intermaxillary fixation screw. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2003;41(1):48-49. doi:10.1016/ S0266-4356(02)00277-2.
  5. Sundar SS, Nandal B, Saikrishna D, Mallesh G. Finite Element Analysis: A Maxillofacial Surgeon’s Perspective. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2011;11(2):206-211. doi:10.1007/S12663-011-0319-5.
  6. Lisiak-Myszke M, Marciniak D, Bielinski M, Sobczak H, Garbacewicz L, Drogoszewska B. Application of Finite Element Analysis in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery-A Literature Review. Materials (Basel) 2020;13(14):3063.doi:10.3390/ma13143063.
  7. Choi BH, Yoo JH, Kim KN, et al. Stability testing of a two miniplate fixation technique for mandibular angle fractures. An in vitro study. J Cranio-Maxillofacial Surg. 1995;23(2):122-125. doi:10.1016/S1010-5182(05)80460-3.
  8. Feller KU, Schneider M, Hlawitschka M, et al. Analysis of complications in fractures of the mandibular angle - A study with finite element computation and evaluation of data of 277 patients. J Cranio-Maxillofacial Surg. 2003;31(5):290-295. doi:10.1016/ S1010-5182(03)00015-5.
  9. Bujtr P, Sndor GKB, Bojtos A, et al. Finite element analysis of the human mandible at 3 different stages of life. Oral Surgery, Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endodontology. 2010;110(3):301-309. doi:10.1016/j.tripleo.2010.01.025.
  10. Zhang Y, Ahn PB, Fitzpatrick DC, et al. Interfacial frictional behavior: cancellous bone, cortical bone, and a novel porous tantalum. BIOMATERIAL. J Musculoskelet Res. 1999;3(4):245- 251. doi:10.1142/S0218957799000269.
  11. Kim H-S, Lee Y-K, Park J-Y. Development of FEA procedures for mechanical behaviors of maxilla, teeth and mandible. Int J Precis Eng Manuf. 2016;17(6):785-792. doi:10.1007/s12541-016-0096-7.
  12. Korioth TWP, Romilly DP, Hannam AG. Three-dimensional finite element stress analysis of the dentate human mandible. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1992;88(1):69-96. doi:10.1002/ajpa.1330880107.
  13. Chang C-L, Chen C-S, Huang C-H, et al. Finite element analysis of the dental implant using a topology optimization method. Med Eng Phys. 2012;34(7):999-1008. doi:10.1016/j.medengphy.2012.06.004.
  14. Lamphier J, Ziccardi V, Ruvo A, et al. Complications of mandibular fractures in an urban teaching center. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2003;61(7):745-749. doi:10.1016/S0278-2391(03)00147-2.
  15. Moreno JC, Fernández A, Ortiz J a, et al. Complication rates associated with different treatments for mandibular fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2000;58:273-280-281. doi:http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/S0278-2391(00)90051-X.
  16. Ansari K, Hamlar D, MD DDS, et al. A Comparison of Anterior vs Posterior Isolated Mandible Fractures Treated With Intermaxillary Fixation Screws. Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2011;13(4):266-270.
  17. West GH, Alan Griggs J, Chandran R,et al. Treatment outcomes with the use of maxillomandibular fixation screws in the management of mandible fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014;72(1):112-120. doi:10.1016/j.joms.2013.08.001.
  18. Coletti DP, Salama A, Caccamese JF. Application of Intermaxillary Fixation Screws in Maxillofacial Trauma. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2007;65(9):1746-1750. doi:10.1016/j.joms.2007.04.022.
  19. Rai A, Datarkar A, Borle RM. Are maxillomandibular fixation screws a better option than erich arch bars in achieving maxillomandibular fixation? A randomized clinical study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011; 69 (12): 3015 - 3018. doi: 10.1016 /j.joms. 2010. 12.015.
  20. Rieger MR, Mayberry M, Brose MO. Finite element analysis of six endosseous implants. J Prosthet Dent. 1990;63(6):671-676. doi:10.1016/0022-3913(90)90325-7.
  21. Geng J-P, Tan KBC, Liu G-R. Application of finite element analysis in implant dentistry: A review of the literature. J Prosthet Dent. 2001;85(6):585-598. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1067/ mpr.2001.115251.
  22. Rai A, Datarkar A, Borle RM. Are maxillomandibular fixation screws a better option than erich arch bars in achieving maxillomandibular fixation? A randomized clinical study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011; 69 (12): 3015 - 3018. doi: 10.1016 /j.joms. 2010. 12.015.