BIOMECHANICS OF BONE BLOCK GRAFT MODELS OF DIFFERENT GEOMETRY
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2019 |
Outros Autores: | |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Acta Ortopédica Brasileira (Online) |
Texto Completo: | http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1413-78522019000300136 |
Resumo: | ABSTRACT Objective: To evaluate the mechanical behavior of different geometry bone block grafts in wooden models. Methods: Constructs with rectangular (G1) and trapezoidal (G2) profile “grafts”, fixed with 3.5 mm 8-hole dynamic compression plates were submitted to non-destructive bending, with the load applied alternately on the same surface as that of the plate fixation (upper) and on the opposite surface (lower), and torsion tests. A 50 N maximum load for bending and a 5° maximum deformation for torsion were considered. Rigidity (N/mm) was recorded for the former and torque (N.m) was recorded for the latter. Results: Rigidity was consistently higher in G2 than in G1, but not significantly so for all comparisons. The exception was for the load applied on the same surface of plate fixation, significantly higher in G1 than in G2. Torque was higher in G1, but not significantly so. Conclusion: The two different-profile “grafts” present a similar mechanical behavior and can be indistinctly used in clinical practice. Level of evidence V, specialist's opinion based on basic studies. |
id |
SBOT-1_a28dcd870168042588dc0160dede44f5 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:scielo:S1413-78522019000300136 |
network_acronym_str |
SBOT-1 |
network_name_str |
Acta Ortopédica Brasileira (Online) |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
BIOMECHANICS OF BONE BLOCK GRAFT MODELS OF DIFFERENT GEOMETRYInternal fixation of fracturesBone transplantationComplicationsPseudarthrosisABSTRACT Objective: To evaluate the mechanical behavior of different geometry bone block grafts in wooden models. Methods: Constructs with rectangular (G1) and trapezoidal (G2) profile “grafts”, fixed with 3.5 mm 8-hole dynamic compression plates were submitted to non-destructive bending, with the load applied alternately on the same surface as that of the plate fixation (upper) and on the opposite surface (lower), and torsion tests. A 50 N maximum load for bending and a 5° maximum deformation for torsion were considered. Rigidity (N/mm) was recorded for the former and torque (N.m) was recorded for the latter. Results: Rigidity was consistently higher in G2 than in G1, but not significantly so for all comparisons. The exception was for the load applied on the same surface of plate fixation, significantly higher in G1 than in G2. Torque was higher in G1, but not significantly so. Conclusion: The two different-profile “grafts” present a similar mechanical behavior and can be indistinctly used in clinical practice. Level of evidence V, specialist's opinion based on basic studies.ATHA EDITORA2019-06-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1413-78522019000300136Acta Ortopédica Brasileira v.27 n.3 2019reponame:Acta Ortopédica Brasileira (Online)instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Ortopedia e Traumatologia (SBOT)instacron:SBOT10.1590/1413-785220192703188112info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessBarbieri,Cláudio HenriqueGarcia-Mandarano Filho,Luizeng2019-05-27T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S1413-78522019000300136Revistahttp://www.actaortopedica.com.br/https://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.php1atha@uol.com.br||actaortopedicabrasileira@uol.com.br1809-44061413-7852opendoar:2019-05-27T00:00Acta Ortopédica Brasileira (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Ortopedia e Traumatologia (SBOT)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
BIOMECHANICS OF BONE BLOCK GRAFT MODELS OF DIFFERENT GEOMETRY |
title |
BIOMECHANICS OF BONE BLOCK GRAFT MODELS OF DIFFERENT GEOMETRY |
spellingShingle |
BIOMECHANICS OF BONE BLOCK GRAFT MODELS OF DIFFERENT GEOMETRY Barbieri,Cláudio Henrique Internal fixation of fractures Bone transplantation Complications Pseudarthrosis |
title_short |
BIOMECHANICS OF BONE BLOCK GRAFT MODELS OF DIFFERENT GEOMETRY |
title_full |
BIOMECHANICS OF BONE BLOCK GRAFT MODELS OF DIFFERENT GEOMETRY |
title_fullStr |
BIOMECHANICS OF BONE BLOCK GRAFT MODELS OF DIFFERENT GEOMETRY |
title_full_unstemmed |
BIOMECHANICS OF BONE BLOCK GRAFT MODELS OF DIFFERENT GEOMETRY |
title_sort |
BIOMECHANICS OF BONE BLOCK GRAFT MODELS OF DIFFERENT GEOMETRY |
author |
Barbieri,Cláudio Henrique |
author_facet |
Barbieri,Cláudio Henrique Garcia-Mandarano Filho,Luiz |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Garcia-Mandarano Filho,Luiz |
author2_role |
author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Barbieri,Cláudio Henrique Garcia-Mandarano Filho,Luiz |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Internal fixation of fractures Bone transplantation Complications Pseudarthrosis |
topic |
Internal fixation of fractures Bone transplantation Complications Pseudarthrosis |
description |
ABSTRACT Objective: To evaluate the mechanical behavior of different geometry bone block grafts in wooden models. Methods: Constructs with rectangular (G1) and trapezoidal (G2) profile “grafts”, fixed with 3.5 mm 8-hole dynamic compression plates were submitted to non-destructive bending, with the load applied alternately on the same surface as that of the plate fixation (upper) and on the opposite surface (lower), and torsion tests. A 50 N maximum load for bending and a 5° maximum deformation for torsion were considered. Rigidity (N/mm) was recorded for the former and torque (N.m) was recorded for the latter. Results: Rigidity was consistently higher in G2 than in G1, but not significantly so for all comparisons. The exception was for the load applied on the same surface of plate fixation, significantly higher in G1 than in G2. Torque was higher in G1, but not significantly so. Conclusion: The two different-profile “grafts” present a similar mechanical behavior and can be indistinctly used in clinical practice. Level of evidence V, specialist's opinion based on basic studies. |
publishDate |
2019 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2019-06-01 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1413-78522019000300136 |
url |
http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1413-78522019000300136 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
10.1590/1413-785220192703188112 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
text/html |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
ATHA EDITORA |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
ATHA EDITORA |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Acta Ortopédica Brasileira v.27 n.3 2019 reponame:Acta Ortopédica Brasileira (Online) instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Ortopedia e Traumatologia (SBOT) instacron:SBOT |
instname_str |
Sociedade Brasileira de Ortopedia e Traumatologia (SBOT) |
instacron_str |
SBOT |
institution |
SBOT |
reponame_str |
Acta Ortopédica Brasileira (Online) |
collection |
Acta Ortopédica Brasileira (Online) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Acta Ortopédica Brasileira (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Ortopedia e Traumatologia (SBOT) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
1atha@uol.com.br||actaortopedicabrasileira@uol.com.br |
_version_ |
1752122276432576512 |