0
Research Papers

Biomechanics of the Canine Mandible During Bone Transport Distraction Osteogenesis

[+] Author and Article Information
Uriel Zapata

Mechanical Engineering Department,
EAFIT University,
Medellin 050022, Colombia
e-mail: uzapata@eafit.edu.co

Paul C. Dechow

Baylor College of Dentistry,
Texas A&M University,
Dallas, TX 75246
e-mail: pdechow@bcd.tamhsc.edu

Ikuya Watanabe

Department of Dental and Biomedical
Materials Science,
Nagasaki University Graduate School of Biomedical Science,
Nagasaki 852-8523, Japan
e-mail: ikuyaw@nagasaki-u.ac.jp

Mohammed E. Elsalanty

Department of Oral Biology and
Maxillofacial Surgery,
College of Dental Medicine,
Georgia Regents University,
Augusta, GA 30912
e-mail: melsalanty@gru.edu

Lynne A. Opperman

Baylor College of Dentistry,
Texas A&M University,
Dallas, TX 75246
e-mail: lopperman@bcd.tamhsc.edu

1Corresponding authors.

Manuscript received November 4, 2013; final manuscript received July 30, 2014; accepted manuscript posted August 27, 2014; published online September 19, 2014. Assoc. Editor: Joel D. Stitzel.

J Biomech Eng 136(11), 111011 (Sep 19, 2014) (8 pages) Paper No: BIO-13-1518; doi: 10.1115/1.4028409 History: Received November 04, 2013; Revised July 30, 2014

This study compared biomechanical patterns between finite element models (FEMs) and a fresh dog mandible tested under molar and incisal physiological loads in order to clarify the effect of the bone transport distraction osteogenesis (BTDO) surgical process. Three FEMs of dog mandibles were built in order to evaluate the effects of BTDO. The first model evaluated the mandibular response under two physiological loads resembling bite processes. In the second model, a 5.0 cm bone defect was bridged with a bone transport reconstruction plate (BTRP). In the third model, new regenerated bony tissue was incorporated within the defect to mimic the surgical process without the presence of the device. Complementarily, a mandible of a male American foxhound dog was mechanically tested in the laboratory both in the presence and absence of a BTRP, and mechanical responses were measured by attaching rosettes to the bone surface of the mandible to validate the FEM predictions. The relationship between real and predicted values indicates that the stress patterns calculated using FEM are a valid predictor of the biomechanics of the BTDO procedures. The present study provides an interesting correlation between the stiffness of the device and the biomechanical response of the mandible affected for bone transport.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Codivilla, A., 1905, “On the Means of Lengthening, in the Lower Limbs, the Muscles and Tissues Which Are Shortened Through Deformity,” J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., 22(4), pp. 353–369.
Abbott, L. C., 1927, “The Operative Lengthening of the Tibia and Fibula,” J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., 9(1), pp. 128–152.
McCarthy, J. G., Schreiber, J., Karp, N., Thorne, C. H., and Grayson, B. H., 1992, “Lengthening the Human Mandible by Gradual Distraction,” Plast. Reconstr. Surg., 89(1), pp. 1–8. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Karp, N. S., Thorne, C. H., McCarthy, J. G., and Sissons, H. A., 1990, “Bone Lengthening in the Craniofacial Skeleton,” Ann. Plast. Surg., 24(3), pp. 231–237. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ilizarov, G. A., 1989, “The Tension–Stress Effect on the Genesis and Growth of Tissues. Part I. The Influence of Stability of Fixation and Soft-Tissue Preservation,” Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res., 238, pp. 249–281. [PubMed]
Ilizarov, G. A., 1989, “The Tension–Stress Effect on the Genesis and Growth of Tissues: Part II. The Influence of the Rate and Frequency of Distraction,” Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res., 239, pp. 263–285. [PubMed]
Snyder, C. C., Levine, G. A., Swanson, H. M., and Browne, E. Z., Jr., 1973, “Mandibular Lengthening by Gradual Distraction: Preliminary Report,” Plast. Reconstr. Surg., 51(5), pp. 506–508. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Michieli, S., and Miotti, B., 1977, “Lengthening of Mandibular Body by Gradual Surgical Orthodontic Distraction,” J. Oral Surg., 35(3), pp. 187–192. [PubMed]
Costantino, P. D., Shybut, G., Friedman, C. D., Pelzer, H. J., Masini, M., Shindo, M. L., and Sisson, G. A., Sr., 1990, “Segmental Mandibular Regeneration by Distraction Osteogenesis. An Experimental Study,” Arch. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg., 116(5), pp. 535–545. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Kim, S. M., Park, J. M., Myoung, H., and Lee, J. H., 2010, “Transport Disc Distraction Osteogenesis as an Alternative Protocol for Mandibular Reconstruction,” J. Plast. Reconstr. Aestheth. Surg., 63(8), pp. e644–e646. [CrossRef]
Rubio-Bueno, P., Sanroman, F., Garcia, P., Sanchez, M., Llorens, P., Nieto, S., Adrados, M., Sastre, J., DeArtinano, F. O., Amde, S., Naval, L., and Diaz-Gonzalez, F. J., 2002, “Experimental Mandibular Regeneration by Distraction Osteogenesis With Submerged Devices: Preliminary Results of a Canine Model,” J. Craniofac. Surg., 13(2), pp. 224–230. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Wang, J. J., Chen, J., Ping, F. Y., and Yan, F. G., 2012, “Double-Step Transport Distraction Osteogenesis in the Reconstruction of Unilateral Large Mandibular Defects After Tumour Resection Using Internal Distraction Devices,” Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg., 41(5), pp. 587–595. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Cope, J. B., Samchukov, M. L., and Muirhead, D. E., 2002, “Distraction Osteogenesis and Histogenesis in Beagle Dogs: The Effect of Gradual Mandibular Osteodistraction on Bone and Gingiva,” J. Periodontol., 73(3), pp. 271–282. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Swennen, G., Schliephake, H., Dempf, R., Schierle, H., and Malevez, C., 2001, “Craniofacial Distraction Osteogenesis: A Review of the Literature. Part 1: Clinical Studies,” Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg., 30(2), pp. 89–103. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Djasim, U. M., Wolvius, E. B., van Neck, J. W., Weinans, H., and van der Wal, K. G. H., 2007, “Recommendations for Optimal Distraction Protocols for Various Animal Models on the Basis of a Systematic Review of the Literature,” Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg., 36(10), pp. 877–883. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Kofod, T., Cattaneo, P. M., Dalstra, M., and Melsen, B., 2005, “Three-Dimensional Finite Element Analysis of the Mandible and Temporomandibular Joint During Vertical Ramus Elongation by Distraction Osteogenesis,” J. Craniofac. Surg., 16(4), pp. 586–593. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Cope, J. B., Samchukov, M. L., Cherkashin, A. M., Wolford, L. M., and Franco, P., 1999, “Biomechanics of Mandibular Distractor Orientation: An Animal Model Analysis,” J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg., 57(8), pp. 952–962. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Cope, J. B., and Samchukov, M. L., 2000, “Regenerate Bone Formation and Remodeling during Mandibular Osteodistraction,” Angle Orthod., 70(2), pp. 99–111. [PubMed]
Lindner, D. L., Marretta, S. M., Pijanowski, G. J., Johnson, A. L., and Smith, C. W., 1995, “Measurement of Bite Force in Dogs: A Pilot Study,” J. Vet. Dent., 12(2), pp. 49–52. [PubMed]
Chopra, S., and Enepekides, D. J., 2007, “The Role of Distraction Osteogenesis in Mandibular Reconstruction,” Curr. Opin. Otolaryngol. Head. Neck. Surg., 15(4), pp. 197–201. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Hibbeller, R. C., 2010, Mechanics of Materials, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Castaño, M. C., Zapata, U., Pedroza, A., Jaramillo, J. D., and Roldán, S., 2002, “Creation of a Three-Dimensional Model of the Mandible and the TMJ in Vivo by Means of the Finite Element Method,” Int. J. Comput. Dent., 5(2,3), pp. 87–99. [PubMed]
Gilmore, R. S., Pollack, R. P., and Katz, J. L., 1970, “Elastic Properties of Bovine Dentine and Enamel,” Arch. Oral Biol., 15(8), pp. 787–796. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Jørgensen, C. S., and Kundu, T., 2002, “Measurement of Material Elastic Constants of Trabecular Bone: A Micromechanical Analytic Study Using a 1 GHz Acoustic Microscope,” J. Orthop. Res., 20(1), pp. 151–158. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Pressel, T., Bouguecha, A., Vogt, U., Meyer-Lindenberg, A., Behrens, B. A., Nolte, I., and Windhagen, H., 2005, “Mechanical Properties of Femoral Trabecular Bone in Dogs,” Biomed. Eng. Online, 4, p. 17 [CrossRef]. [PubMed]
Zapata, U., Opperman, L. A., Kontogiorgos, E., Elsalanty, M. E., and Dechow, P. C., 2011, “Biomechanical Characteristics of Regenerated Cortical Bone in the Canine Mandible,” J. Tissue Eng. Regener. Med., 5(7), pp. 551–559. [CrossRef]
Jurvelin, J. S., Arokoski, J. P. A., Hunziker, E. B., and Helminen, H. J., 2000, “Topographical Variation of the Elastic Properties of Articular Cartilage in the Canine Knee,” J. Biomech., 33(6), pp. 669–675. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Scapino, R., 1981, “Morphological Investigation Into Functions of the Jaw Symphysis in Carnivorans,” J. Morphol., 167(3), pp. 339–375. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Boyer, R., Welsch, G., and Collings, E., 2007, Material Properies Handbook: Titanium Alloys, ASM International, Materials Park, OH.
Campos, T. N., Adachi, L. K., Chorres, J. E., Campos, A. C., Muramatsu, M., and Gioso, M. A., 2006, “Holographic Interferometry Method for Assessment of Static Load Stress Distribution in Dog Mandible,” Braz. Dent. J., 17(4), pp. 279–284. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Kontogiorgos, E., Elsalanty, M. E., Zapata, U., Zakhary, I., Nagy, W. W., Dechow, P. C., and Opperman, L. A., 2011, “Three-Dimensional Evaluation of Mandibular Bone Regenerated by Bone Transport Distraction Osteogenesis,” Calcif. Tissue Int., 89(1), pp. 43–52. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Zapata, U., Halvachs, E. K., Dechow, P. C., Elsalanty, M. E., and Opperman, L. A., 2011, “Architecture and Microstructure of Cortical Bone in Reconstructed Canine Mandibles After Bone Transport Distraction Osteogenesis,” Calcif. Tissue Int., 89(5), pp. 379–388. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Kontogiorgos, E., Elsalanty, M. E., Zakhary, I., Nagy, W. W., Dechow, P. C., and Opperman, L. A., 2013, “Osseointegration of Dental Implants Placed Into Canine Mandibular Bone Regenerated by Bone Transport Distraction Osteogenesis,” Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants, 28(3), pp. 677–686. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Nosaka, Y., Tsunokuma, M., Hayashi, H., and Kakudo, K., 2000, “Placement of Implants in Distraction Osteogenesis: A Pilot Study in Dogs,” Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants, 15(2), pp. 185–192. [PubMed]
Trucano, T., and Post, D., 2004, “Verification and Validation in Computational Science and Engineering,” Comput. Sci. Eng., 6(5), pp. 8–9. [CrossRef]
Babuska, I., and Oden, J. T., 2004, “Verification and Validation in Computational Engineering and Science: Basic Concepts,” Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 193(36–38), pp. 4057–4066. [CrossRef]
Viceconti, M., Olsen, S., Nolte, L. P., and Burton, K., 2005, “Extracting Clinically Relevant Data From Finite Element Simulations,” Clin. Biomech., 20(5), pp. 451–454. [CrossRef]
Henninger, H. B., Reese, S. P., Anderson, A. E., and Weiss, J. A., 2010, “Validation of Computational Models in Biomechanics,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part H, 224(H7), pp. 801–812. [CrossRef]
Throckmorton, G. S., and Dechow, P. C., 1994, “In Vitro Strain Measurements in the Condylar Process of the Human Mandible,” Arch. Oral Biol., 39(10), pp. 853–867. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Panagiotopoulou, O., Curtis, N., O' Higgins, P., and Cobb, S. N., 2010, “Modelling Subcortical Bone in Finite Element Analyses: A Validation and Sensitivity Study in the Macaque Mandible,” J. Biomech., 43(8), pp. 1603–1611. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Marinescu, R., Daegling, D. J., and Rapoff, A. J., 2005, “Finite-Element Modeling of the Anthropoid Mandible: The Effects of Altered Boundary Conditions,” Anat. Rec. A Discover. Mol. Cell Evol. Biol., 283(2), pp. 300–309. [CrossRef]
Keyak, J. H., Fourkas, M. G., Meagher, J. M., and Skinner, H. B., 1993, “Validation of an Automated Method of Three-Dimensional Finite Element Modelling of Bone,” J. Biomed. Eng., 15(6), pp. 505–509. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Carte, D. R., and Hayes, W. C., 1977, “The Compressive Behavior of Bone as a Two-Phase Porous Structure,” J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., 59(7), pp. 954–962. [PubMed]
Zapata, U., Elsalanty, M. E., Dechow, P. C., and Opperman, L. A., 2010, “Biomechanical Configurations of Mandibular Transport Distraction Osteogenesis Devices,” Tissue Eng. Part B Rev., 16(3), pp. 273–283. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

In vitro models of the dog mandible placed on the frame. (a) Complete mandible tested in the laboratory under static vertical load on the left first molar to record the strains using rosettes. Rosettes 1, 3, and 4 are presented. (b) Canine mandible with the BTRP device bridging the created bone defect on the right side of the mandible.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Models of the dog mandible. (a) Fresh dissected mandible from the Beagle dog. (b) Computational 3D model of the mandible including teeth, cortical, and trabecular bone. (c) 3D-FEM of the mandible including its morphological structures.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

3D-FEM of the dog mandible resembling the three medical conditions. (a) Complete mandible including cortical and trabecular bone, teeth, cartilage, and the symphysis. (b) 3D model of the resected mandible and the novel BTRP device bridging the defect (5 cm long). (c) 3D model of the reconstructed mandible including the new regenerated tissue. In the third case, the BTRP device was not included in order to simulate the postoperative process.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Vertical displacement (mm) obtained from computational and experimental models at the places that the loads were applied. C-M-M (complete-mandible-molar load), D-M-M (distracted-mandible-molar load), C-M-I (complete-mandible-incisal load), and D-M-I (distracted-mandible-incisal load).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Orientation of the principal strains obtained from the rosettes among the four experimental tests. The dashed line is associated with the complete model of the mandible (condition 1), whereas the solid line represents the presence of the BTRP device on the resected mandible (condition 2). (a) Molar force model and (b) incisor force model.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Numerical results from the FEMs for the 100 N load applied at the incisal position. The first column represents the model of the mandible without surgical intervention; the second column represents the mandible at the earliest bone transport stage, including the device; and the third column represents the mandible with the newly formed bone tissue 12 weeks after distraction. The first row represents the vertical deformation patterns, and the second row shows the Von Misses stress patterns.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Numerical results from the FEMs for the 256 N load applied at the molar position. The first column represents the model of the mandible without surgical intervention; the second column represents the mandible at the earliest bone transport stage, including the device; and the third column represents the mandible with the newly formed bone tissue 12 weeks after distraction. The first row represents the vertical deformation pattern, and the second row shows the Von Misses stress patterns.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Validation of the biomechanical result for BTDO using both computational and experimental results. Linear correlation between normal maximum strains recorded on the rosettes attached to the mandible and predicted maximum normal strains read from the FEMs.

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In