Experimental investigation of temperature rise in bone drilling with cooling: A comparison between modes of without cooling, internal gas cooling, and external liquid cooling

Abstract

Bone fracture occurs due to accident, aging, and disease. For the treatment of bone fractures, it is essential that the bones are kept fixed in the right place. In complex fractures, internal fixation or external methods are used to fix the fracture position. In order to immobilize the fracture position and connect the holder equipment to it, bone drilling is required. During the drilling of the bone, the required forces to chip formation could cause an increase in the temperature. If the resulting temperature increases to 47 °C, it causes thermal necrosis of the bone. Thermal necrosis decreases bone strength in the hole and, subsequently, due to incomplete immobilization of bone, fracture repair is not performed correctly. In this study, attempts have been made to compare local temperature increases in different processes of bone drilling. This comparison has been done between drilling without cooling, drilling with gas cooling, and liquid cooling on bovine femur. Drilling tests with gas coolant using direct injection of CO and N gases were carried out by internal coolant drill bit. The results showed that with the use of gas coolant, the elevation of temperature has limited to 6 °C and the thermal necrosis is prevented. Maximum temperature rise reached in drilling without cooling was 56 °C, using gas and liquid coolant, a maximum temperature elevation of 43 °C and 42 °C have been obtained, respectively. This resulted in decreased possibility of thermal necrosis of bone in drilling with gas and liquid cooling. However, the results showed that the values obtained with the drilling method with direct gas cooling are independent of the rotational speed of drill.

Hollow Notched K‐Wires for Bone Drilling With Through‐Tool Cooling

“…Compared to hollow notched K‐wire drilling without cooling and with compressed air cooling, the hollow center and notch got clogged by the mix of water and bone debris (Fig. D), consistent to findings in Shakouri et al), preventing the debris evacuation and heat dissipation. Extra water pressure applied through the blockage debris led to higher thrust force needed.…”

Appraising Efficiency of OpSite as Coolant in Drilling of Bone

“…However, to compare the efficiency of coolants directly, the results are separated for each specific drilling diameter and are also presented in Figure 2a Moreover, studies on the effect of drilling speed and feed-rate on temperature elevation are not consistent [22]. This was also the case when external cooling was employed since in the experiments of Shakouri et al [3], there is no trend for temperature variations with changes in drilling speed, neither without cooling nor with external cooling. In spite of this, the external cooling efficiency in limiting the temperature rise is observed with all combinations of parameters in the current study.…”

“…Table 1 and Figure 2, using OpSite spray not only limited the maximum temperature elevation in our experiments, but also shows much better results in comparison to normal saline. It is more important if consider the lower risks of infection for this coolant since it is not liquid but rather is in the form of spray [3]. Furthermore, according to the literature, for occurrence of thermal osteonecrosis, there is a reverse exponential relationship between thermal necrosis temperature and necrosis time.…”

“…Hence, there are various studies to decrease and control the heat generation. Evaluating different drilling methods, such as ultrasonic-assisted drilling [2] and water jet drilling [5], drilling techniques, like as one step and gradual drilling techniques [6,7], drilling parameters, including drilling speed, force, and feedrate [6,[8][9][10][11][12], tool parameters (geometry) [8,[12][13][14], and cooling conditions, including internal and external cooling methods [6,8,[15][16][17] and various coolants [3] are amongst the main efforts in this regard.…”

Finite element analysis of occlusal splint therapy in patients with bruxism

“…It is worth noting that due to personal limitations of the patients, it was only possible to create the 3D model of jaw, teeth and splint of 10 women and 11 men after 6 months of using splint. Since the analyses based on FEM are among the most familiar methods for biological simulation [28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41], the assembled models were transferred finally to ABAQUS software version 6.14 (Dassault Systemes) for FE analysis. Furthermore, for comparing the results of computer simulations in patients and control subjects and also for comparing the results in patients before and after the occlusal splint therapy, three specific anatomical points of the skull of samples were used as set points to synchronize the procedures and to standardize the samples' head position.…”