Journals / Cyprus Journal of Medical Sciences / 2021 / Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 4

Comparison of Custom-Made 3D Printed Bio-Degradable Plates and Titanium Anatomical Plates at Fracture Treatment: A Biomechanical Study

Pages
285–289
Publication Date
2022-11-06
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)

The improvement of bio-degradable materials and 3D printing techniques may allow these systems to be eligible for the treatment of fractures.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:BACKGROUND/AIMS The aim of this study is to evaluate the custom-made three dimensional (3D) printed bio-degradable implants in osteosynthesis of fractures and compare them with widely used titanium implants.
📊
Key Findings & Data:MATERIALS AND METHODS Custom 3D printed bio-degradable poly-L-lactic acid (PLLA) implants were compared with titanium plates.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The improvement of bio-degradable materials and 3D printing techniques may allow these systems to be eligible for the treatment of fractures.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

BACKGROUND/AIMS The aim of this study is to evaluate the custom-made three dimensional (3D) printed bio-degradable implants in osteosynthesis of fractures and compare them with widely used titanium implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS Custom 3D printed bio-degradable poly-L-lactic acid (PLLA) implants were compared with titanium plates. The tibial fracture models were obtained from ankle computerized tomography (CT) images. 3D model files obtained from 10 patients ankle CT images with medial malleolar fractures were used for anatomical reduction and 3D implant modeling. The PLLA and titanium plates were tested on 3D printed bone models. Fracture reduction quality was evaluated by drawing an imaginary line between the proximal and distal cortices of the fracture. A break in this imaginary line was defined as low quality of reduction. Maximum load and compression strengths were evaluated by the mechanical test system. Results were statistically evaluated with independent sample t-test (P < .05). RESULTS The maximum load and compression strength values of the titanium plates were significantly higher than the PLLA plates. The reduction quality was perfect in all custom-made plate fixed fracture models; however, in six of 10 fracture models fixed with titanium plates, the reduction was found in low quality. CONCLUSION The results of the study revealed that full anatomical custom plates can be manufactured using 3D printer. The 3D design provided better reduction quality at in vitro fracture models. These bio-degradable implants may be eligible for implantation at fracture stabilization at non-weight bearing areas. The improvement of bio-degradable materials and 3D printing techniques may allow these systems to be eligible for the treatment of fractures.

🔖

Cite This Article

MAMMADOV, E., YALÇINOZAN, M. (2022). Comparison of Custom-Made 3D Printed Bio-Degradable Plates and Titanium Anatomical Plates at Fracture Treatment: A Biomechanical Study. Cyprus Journal of Medical Sciences, Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 4, 285–289. https://ajindex.com/articles/649492

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (5)

  1. Peksen C, Dog˘an A. Implant permanence. TOTBID Dergisi. 2011;10(2):122-128
  2. Ceyhan T, Ko¨se N. The use of biomaterials in orthopedics: General information and definitions. TOTBID Dergisi. 2011;10(2):79-82
  3. Heller M, Bauer HK, Goetze E, et al. Applications of patient-specific 3D printing in medicine. Int J Comput Dent. 2016;19(4):323-339
  4. Tack P, Victor J, Gemmel P, Annemans L. 3D-printing techniques in a medical setting: A systematic literature review. BioMed Eng OnLine. 2016;15:115. [CrossRef] 5. Zeng CJ, Xing WR, Wu ZL, Huang HJ, Huang WH. A combination of three-dimensional printing and computer-assisted virtual surgical procedure for preoperative planning of acetabular fracture reduction. Injury. 2016;47(10):2223-2227. [CrossRef] 6. Chou YC, Lee D, Chang TM, et al. Development of a threedimensional (3D) printed biodegradable cage to convert morselized corticocancellous bone chips into a structured cortical bone graft. Int J Mol Sci. 2016;17(4):595. [CrossRef] 7. Liu A, Xue GH, Sun M, et al. 3D printing surgical implants at the clinic: A experimental study on anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Sci Rep. 2016;6. Article no. 21704. [CrossRef] 8. Radenkovic D, Solouk A, Seifalian A. Personalized development of human organs using 3D printing technology. Med Hypoth. 2016;87:30-33. [CrossRef] 9. Wyatt MC. Custom 3D-printed acetabular implants in hip surgeryinnovative breakthrough or expensive bespoke upgrade? Hip Int. 2015;25(4):375-379. [CrossRef] 10. Frame M, Leach W. DIY 3D printing of custom orthopaedic implants: A proof of concept study. Surg Technol Int. 2014;24:314- 317
  5. Liang H, Huang W, Chen X, et al. Reconstruction with 3D-printed pelvic endoprostheses after resection of a pelvic tumour. Bone Joint J. 2017;99-B(2):267-275. [CrossRef] 12. Kim D, Lim JY, Shim KW, et al. Sacral reconstruction with a 3Dprinted implant after hemisacrectomy in a patient with sacral osteosarcoma: 1-Year follow-up result. Yonsei Med J. 2017;58(2):453-457. [CrossRef] 13. Phan K, Sgro A, Maharaj MM, et al. Application of a 3D custom printed patient specific spinal implant for C1/2 arthrodesis. J Spine Surg. 2016;2(4):314-318. [CrossRef] 14. Bertol LS, Schabbach R, dos Santos LAL. Dimensional evaluation of patient-specific 3D printing using calcium phosphate cement for craniofacial bone reconstruction. J Biomater Appl. 2017;31(6):799- 806. [CrossRef] 15. Suojanen J, Leikola J, Stoor P. The use of patient-specific implants in orthognathic surgery: A series