» Articles » PMID: 38911404

Microplate Versus Combined Microplate-Miniplate in Fixation of Zygomaticomaxillary Complex Fractures: An In-Silico Analysis of Biomechanical Parameters

Overview
Date 2024 Jun 24
PMID 38911404
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Introduction: To compare the biomechanical parameters of microplates and the combined miniplate-microplate for fixing zygomaticomaxillary complex (ZMC) fractures using nonlinear finite element analysis (FEA).

Material And Methods: Two samples of ZMC fracture models were prepared. In sample 1 (S1), the fractures were stabilized with microplates, and in sample 2 (S2), with miniplates plus microplates. FEA software was used to measure the displacement, Von Mises stress distribution (VMSD), and maximum principal stress distribution (MPSD).

Results: The displacement was 6.7 μm in the L-shaped plate of both samples, 4.4 μm in the S1 lateral-edge plate, 4.8 μm in the S2 lateral-edge plate, 5.8 μm in the S1 bottom-edge plate, and 5.6 μm in the S2 bottom-edge plate. The VMSD was 41.1 MPa in the S1 lateral-edge plate, 24.3 MPa in the S2 lateral-edge plate, 7.6 MPa in the S1 Lshaped plate, 9.6 MPa in S2 L-shaped plate, 28.5 MPa in the S1 bottom-edge plate, and 11.8 MPa in the S2 bottom-edge plate. The MPSD was 46.2 MPa in the S1 lateral-edge plate, 26.4 MPa in the S2 lateral-edge plate, 3.6 MPa in S1 L-shaped plate, 4.2 MPa in S2 L-shaped plate, 30.9 MPa in S1 bottom-edge plate, and 14.1 MPa in the S2 bottom-edge plate.

Conclusion: The L-shaped and lateral-edge plates in both samples had the highest and lowest amount of displacement, respectively. The lateral-edge plates in both samples had the highest VMSD and MPSD, which was higher in S1 than S2. The L-shaped plate had the lowest VMSD and MPSD in both samples.

References
1.
Raghoebar I, Rozema F, de Lange J, Dubois L . Surgical treatment of fractures of the zygomaticomaxillary complex: effect of fixation on repositioning and stability. A systematic review. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2022; 60(4):397-411. DOI: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2021.07.006. View

2.
Arbag H, Korkmaz H, Ozturk K, Uyar Y . Comparative evaluation of different miniplates for internal fixation of mandible fractures using finite element analysis. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2008; 66(6):1225-32. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2005.11.092. View

3.
Kostakis G, Stathopoulos P, Dais P, Gkinis G, Igoumenakis D, Mezitis M . An epidemiologic analysis of 1,142 maxillofacial fractures and concomitant injuries. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2012; 114(5 Suppl):S69-73. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2011.08.029. View

4.
Deveci M, Eski M, Gurses S, Yucesoy C, Selmanpakoglu N, Akkas N . Biomechanical analysis of the rigid fixation of zygoma fractures: an experimental study. J Craniofac Surg. 2004; 15(4):595-602. DOI: 10.1097/00001665-200407000-00013. View

5.
Sansgiri T, Prasad K, Kumar V, Ranganath K, Rajanikanth B, Sejal K . Comparative Assessment of Microplates with Miniplates in the Fixation of Midface Fractures: A Prospective Study. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2022; 21(2):396-404. PMC: 9192895. DOI: 10.1007/s12663-020-01453-5. View