Influences of geometrical and mechanical properties of bone tissues in mandible behaviour – experimental and numerical predictions

Abstract

The properties and geometry of bone in the mandible play a key role in mandible behaviour during a person's lifetime, and attention needs to be paid to the influence of bone properties. We analysed the effect of bone geometry, size and bone properties in mandible behaviour, experimenting on cadaveric mandibles and FE models. The study was developed using the geometry of a cadaveric mandible without teeth. Three models of cadaveric condyles were experimentally tested with instrumented with four rosettes, and a condyle reaction of 300 N. Four finite element models were considered to validate the experiments and analyse mandible behaviour. One numeric model was simulated with 10 muscles in a quasi-static condition. The experimental results present different condyle stiffness's, of 448, 215 and 254 N/mm. The values presented in the rosettes are influenced by bone geometry and bone thickness; maximum value was -600 με in rosette #4, and the maximum strain difference between mandibles was 111%. The numerical results show that bone density decreases and strain distribution increases in the thinner mandible regions. Nevertheless, the global behaviour of the structure remains similar, but presents different strain magnitudes. The study shows the need to take into account bone characteristics and their evolutions in order to improve implant design and fixation throughout the patient life. The change in bone stiffness promotes a change in maximum strain distribution with same global behaviour.

Posterior column acetabular fracture fixation using a W-shaped angular plate: A biomechanical analysis

“…Strain gauge was a simple procedure to evaluate the stress distribution in the cortical bone [ 10 ]. We defined 10 points around the acetabulum as depicted in Fig 5 .…”

Patient‐specific finite element models of the human mandible: Lack of consensus on current set‐ups

“…We find that five of the selected studies had a PR of 0.3 or close to it (Gröning et al, 2009;Ramos et al, 2017Ramos et al, , 2019. Clason et al (2004) Ramos et al, 2017). The effect of which is expected to be marginal.…”

“…The studies that mechanically tested the PR of the mandible in different directions showed values ranging from 0.18 to 0.53 (Dechow et al, 1993;Schwartz-Dabney & Dechow, 2003). We find that five of the selected studies had a PR of 0.3 or close to it (Gröning et al, 2009;Ramos et al, 2017Ramos et al, , 2019. Clason et al (2004) Ramos et al, 2017).…”

“…This resulted in linear hexahedral elements with 8 connective corner points between elements, called nodes (Figure 1b-I). Clason et al (2004), Mesnard and Ramos (2016), Ramos and Mesnard (2016), and Ramos et al (2017Ramos et al ( , 2019 and made use of linear tetrahedral elements which consist of 4 corner nodes and can be presented as a pyramid shape (Figure 1b-II). Linear tetrahedral elements can be fit into complex geometries more accurately with relatively bigger element dimensions due to their pyramid shape.…”

Temporomandibular Joint Bioengineering Conference: Working Together Toward Improving Clinical Outcomes

“…The biomechanics session presented work in progress based on research performed in centers that have traditionally studied the TMJ by developing pioneering methods [14][15][16][17][18]. New data obtained on larger subject samples are providing foundational data showing different loading patterns for different diagnostic groups, in particular, those with myogenous and arthrogenic pain.…”