2012
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2012.04.008
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Does screw–bone interface modelling matter in finite element analyses?

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
74
0
2

Year Published

2012
2012
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

3
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 93 publications
(76 citation statements)
references
References 37 publications
(38 reference statements)
0
74
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…The screws had an external diameter of 4.5 mm and core diameters of 3.84 and 3.5 mm for locking and compression screws, respectively. Threads, with a spacing of 1.4 mm, were modelled as idealised rings rather than helical, an approach that has been previously used (Donaldson et al 2012a;MacLeod et al 2012). This assumption eased meshing and was thought to be unlikely to affect the results.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The screws had an external diameter of 4.5 mm and core diameters of 3.84 and 3.5 mm for locking and compression screws, respectively. Threads, with a spacing of 1.4 mm, were modelled as idealised rings rather than helical, an approach that has been previously used (Donaldson et al 2012a;MacLeod et al 2012). This assumption eased meshing and was thought to be unlikely to affect the results.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The screw -bone interaction at the entrant cortex was modelled as frictional using a standard Coulomb friction coefficient of 0.3 based on some of the recent studies (Eser et al 2010;Pessoa et al 2010;MacLeod et al 2012). As previously found with unilateral fixators (Donaldson et al 2012a), the peak strains were found to be concentrated around the screw holes on the entrant cortex; to simplify simulation the screw -bone interaction at the exit cortex was modelled as tied.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To further improve the model, the implant-bone interfaces (currently modeled as rigid connections), might need to be revisited. While the assump tion of a rigid connection was shown to be sufficient to model bone-screw interfaces when load-deformation responses are needed (as required in our study) [29], including friction might improve estimates of bone damage or stress shielding [29]. Simi larly, the interface between the plate and the bone did not allow for micromotion due to the rigid connection.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 76%
“…However, because the same simplification conditions were assumed for all numerical models, this study can be considered as a comparative study. Moreover, MacLeod and co-workers [37] showed that the global load-deformation response is not influenced by the interface modelling approach employed; the deformation varied by less than 1% between different interaction models. However, interface modelling is found to have a considerable impact on the local stress-strain environment within the bone in the vicinity of the screws.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%