Dental materials journal · 2014
Comparative evaluation of various miniplate systems for the repair of mandibular corpus fractures.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ergun Sertan, Ofluoğlu Duygu, Saruhanoğlu Alp, Karataşli Burçin, Deniz Ediz, Özel Sevda, Tanyeri Hakkı
Аннотация
Miniplates have been used during the last decade to facilitate stability between bony fragments in the maxillofacial region and are currently the preferred surgical method for the fixation of fractures and osteotomies. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the biomechanical behaviors of six different types of miniplates used to reconstruct mandibular body fractures: Group 1 (straight, 2 holes, 12.0 mm spacing), Group 2 (straight, 4 holes, 9.0 spacing), Group 3 (straight, 6 holes, 9.0 mm spacing), Group 4 (L-shaped, 4 holes, 9.0 mm spacing, right hand plate), Group 5 (Y-shaped, 5 holes, 12.0 mm spacing), and Group 6 (double Y-shaped, 6 holes, 9.0 mm spacing). Thirty bovine hemimandibles and a custom-made 3-point biomechanical test frame mounted on a Shimadzu universal test machine were used to evaluate the six different miniplate systems. Results revealed that Group 1 (straight, 2 holes, 12.0 mm spacing) and Group 4 (9.0 mm spacing, right hand plate) had the lowest biomechanical stability, whereas Group 6 (6 holes, 9.0 mm spacing) had the highest biomechanical stability. Group 6 also provided statistically greater resistance to displacement than Group 1 and Group 4.