Fracture Prediction for a Customized Mandibular Reconstruction Plate with Finite Element Method

Novel finite element‐based plate design for bridging mandibular defects: Reducing mechanical failure

“…We found that most of the PS-RPs designs in the literature rely on a strip-like plate which is positioned and fixated at the buccal contour of the mandible (Gutwald, Jaeger, & Lambers, 2017;Li et al, 2014;Luo et al, 2017;Mazzoni et al, 2013;Narra et al, 2014;Wu, Lin, Liu, & Lin, 2017). We decided to make use of the osteotomy site as well and trap the mandibular segment in between the plate design, which is more stable biomechanically, according to our FEA results.…”

“…Over the last two decades, a rapidly increasing number of PS-RPs have been presented in the literature with an equal increase in varying finite element analysis models. Applying FEA is of great importance in the design process, since PS-RPs can still fail mechanically when designed using incorrect assumptions (Li et al, 2014;Luo et al, 2017).…”

“…Numerous studies applied patient-specific reconstruction plates (PS-RP) to prevent plate fracture by changing the material or design of conventional RP (Li et al, 2013;Luo, Xu, Guo, & Rong, 2017;Narra et al, 2014;Singare, Shenggui, & Sheng, 2017) but did not look at screw pull-out and its prevention. In order to prevent failure in further developed PS-RP, it is necessary to assess current conventional reconstructions biomechanically.…”

Computational Models and Their Applications in Biomechanical Analysis of Mandibular Reconstruction Surgery

“…Nevertheless, bone is a highly complex structure with different types of tissue (e.g., cortical or cancellous) and specific characteristics such as viscoelasticity and anisotropy [22,97], and simple modeling assumptions may not fully capture the intricate complexity of bone [95]. To account for this complexity, some studies [21] 2006 -✓ ---Tie et al [29] 2006 ✓ ----Schuller-Götzburg et al [30] 2009 ✓ ✓ --HA Wu et al (a) [31] 2012 ✓ ✓ ---Wong et al [23] 2012 --✓ --Jedrusik-Pawłowska et al [32] 2013 [33] 2013 -✓ --CI & PF Chang et al [34] 2013 [36] 2014 -✓ --CI & PF Bujtár et al [37] 2014 -✓ ---Narra et al [38] 2014 -✓ -CoT -Pinheiro and Alves [39] 2015 --✓ --Al-Ahmari et al [40] 2015 -✓ ---Jahadakbar et al [41] 2016 ✓ ✓ -CoT -Mehle et al [42] 2016 -✓ ---Park et al (a) [43] 2016 ✓ ✓ ---Dahake et al [44] 2017 --✓ --Nasr et al [45] 2017 -✓ ---Moiduddin et al (a) [46] 2017 [47] 2017 ✓ ✓ -FT -Luo et al [48] 2017 -✓ --RA Sanal et al [49] 2017 -✓ ---Seebach et al [24] 2017 ✓ ✓ ---Gutwald et al [50] 2017 -✓ -FT -Yoda et al [18] 2018 [52] 2018 ✓ ✓ ---Hoefert and Taier [53] 2018 -✓ ---Gao et al [ [64] 2021 ✓ ✓ ✓ --Koper et al [25] 2021 -✓ -CoT -Lang et al [22] 2021 ✓ ✓ -CoT & FT CA Kang et al [65] 2021 [74] 2022 --✓ --Shen et al [27] 2022 --✓ CoT -Jung et al [75] 2022 have adopted more sophisticated modeling techniques. Some of th...…”

“…As previously stated, most studies have relied on previously published data in the literature which utilize muscle forces of the intact mandible. Only a few papers have incorporated patient-specific parameters, such as muscle physiological cross-sectional area (PCSA), or optimized muscle force based on the reconstruction in their modeling [14,48,73]. Although some studies have shown that muscle strength returns to presurgery levels during the healing period following resection [29] 2006 ✓ ✓ -✓ ✓ --Schuller-Götzburg et al [30] 2009 [31] 2012 [43] 2016 [47] 2017 ✓ ----✓ -Seebach et al [24] 2017 ✓ --✓ ---Yoda et al [18] 2018 [56] 2019…”