[Comparative in Vitro Studies of Self-boring and Self-tapping Screws. Histomorphological and Physical-technical Studies of Bone Layers]
Overview
General Surgery
Authors
Affiliations
Self-drilling screws are gaining increasing importance in maxillofacial surgery. This study assesses which screw design, self-drilling or self-tapping, is best suited to various locations of the human skull. With regard to different areas in the human midface, mandible, and cranium, the thickness of cortical bone varies as well as the relative proportion of cortical to cancellous bone. Criteria used to judge the success of screws were minimal insertion torque and minimum temperature, maximum pullout strength, and minimum deformation and destruction of the bone. To mimic the variations in anatomical conditions, 1-mm and 3-mm-thick cortical bone specimens and cancellous bone blocks were prepared. Eight screws of three types (self-tapping, self-drilling/self-tapping, conically shaped self-drilling) were inserted into the different bone specimens. Torque and temperature were measured during the insertion procedure. Subsequently, the screws were carefully removed and the specimens were processed for histological evaluation. The same insertion protocol was used to test the pull-out strength of the screws. The conically shaped screw showed best results in cancellous bone for all parameters. The self-tapping screw with a pilot hole performed best in thick cortical bone and the self-drilling/self-tapping screw performed better than did the others in thin bone. The results suggest the three screw designs to be optimal for different locations of the human skull. This project provides the data for a planned in vivo study that will evaluate the long-term influence of deformation and temperature on stability and osseointegration of the screws.
Khemka A, FarajAllah C, Lord S, Bosley B, Al Muderis M J Orthop Surg Res. 2016; 11:13.
PMID: 26781501 PMC: 4717552. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-016-0348-3.
Osseointegrated total knee replacement connected to a lower limb prosthesis: 4 cases.
Khemka A, Frossard L, Lord S, Bosley B, Al Muderis M Acta Orthop. 2015; 86(6):740-4.
PMID: 26145721 PMC: 4750776. DOI: 10.3109/17453674.2015.1068635.
Porto M, Silva P, Rosa R, Volpon J, Shimano A, de Paula F Eur Spine J. 2011; 21(5):956-63.
PMID: 22173611 PMC: 3337909. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-011-2120-z.