3D printed plates based on generative design biomechanically outperform manual digital fitting and conventional systems printed in photopolymers in bridging mandibular bone defects of critical size in dogs

Conventional plate osteosynthesis of critical-sized bone defects in canine mandibles can fail to restore former functionality and stability due to adaption limits. Three-dimensional (3D) printed patient-specific implants are becoming increasingly popular as these can be customized to avoid critical structures, achieve perfect alignment to individual bone contours, and may provide better stability. Using a 3D surface model for the mandible, four plate designs were created and evaluated for their properties to stabilize a defined 30 mm critical-size bone defect. Design-1 was manually designed, and further shape optimized using Autodesk® Fusion 360 (ADF360) and finite element analysis (FE) to generate Design-2. Design-4 was created with the generative design (GD) function from ADF360 using preplaced screw terminals and loading conditions as boundaries. A 12-hole reconstruction titanium locking plate (LP) (2.4/3.0 mm) was also tested, which was scanned, converted to a STL file and 3D printed (Design-3). Each design was 3D printed from a photopolymer resin (VPW) and a photopolymer resin in combination with a thermoplastic elastomer (VPWT) and loaded in cantilever bending using a customized servo-hydraulic mechanical testing system; n = 5 repetitions each. No material defects pre- or post-failure testing were found in the printed mandibles and screws. Plate fractures were most often observed in similar locations, depending on the design. Design-4 has 2.8–3.6 times ultimate strength compared to other plates, even though only 40% more volume was used. Maximum load capacities did not differ significantly from those of the other three designs. All plate types, except D3, were 35% stronger when made of VPW, compared to VPWT. VPWT D3 plates were only 6% stronger. Generative design is faster and easier to handle than optimizing manually designed plates using FE to create customized implants with maximum load-bearing capacity and minimum material requirements. Although guidelines for selecting appropriate outcomes and subsequent refinements to the optimized design are still needed, this may represent a straightforward approach to implementing additive manufacturing in individualized surgical care. The aim of this work is to analyze different design techniques, which can later be used for the development of implants made of biocompatible materials.

[1]  Khanh Linh Tran,et al.  Benefits of Patient-Specific Reconstruction Plates in Mandibular Reconstruction Surgical Simulation and Resident Education , 2022, Journal of clinical medicine.

[2]  S. Stover,et al.  Biomechanical evaluation of locking versus nonlocking 2.0-mm malleable L-miniplate fixation of simulated caudal mandibular fractures in cats. , 2022, American journal of veterinary research.

[3]  R. Zamani,et al.  Comparing the use of conventional and three-dimensional printing (3DP) in mandibular reconstruction , 2022, Biomedical engineering online.

[4]  Nasser Alasseri,et al.  Patient-specific implants for maxillofacial defects: challenges and solutions , 2020, Maxillofacial plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[5]  Mika Salmi,et al.  Cumulative Inaccuracies in Implementation of Additive Manufacturing Through Medical Imaging, 3D Thresholding, and 3D Modeling: A Case Study for an End-Use Implant , 2020, Applied Sciences.

[6]  S. Marretta,et al.  Maxillofacial fracture complications , 2020, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery in Dogs and Cats.

[7]  D. Alfi,et al.  The Use of Patient-Specific Implants in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. , 2019, Oral and maxillofacial surgery clinics of North America.

[8]  S. Hetzel,et al.  Assessment of the Role of the Mandibular First Molar Tooth in Mandibular Fracture Patterns of 29 Dogs , 2019, Journal of veterinary dentistry.

[9]  R. Basting,et al.  Force and deformation stresses in customized and non-customized plates during simulation of advancement genioplasty. , 2017, Journal of cranio-maxillo-facial surgery : official publication of the European Association for Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery.

[10]  A. Worth,et al.  Clinical outcomes of patient-specific porous titanium endoprostheses in dogs with tumors of the mandible, radius, or tibia: 12 cases (2013-2016). , 2017, Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association.

[11]  S. Stover,et al.  Biomechanical evaluation of two plating configurations for fixation of a simple transverse caudal mandibular fracture model in cats. , 2017, American journal of veterinary research.

[12]  Ralf Gutwald,et al.  Customized mandibular reconstruction plates improve mechanical performance in a mandibular reconstruction model , 2016, Computer methods in biomechanics and biomedical engineering.

[13]  Robert C. Richardson,et al.  Analyzing the 3D printed material Tango plus FLX930 for using in self-folding structure , 2016, 2016 International Conference for Students on Applied Engineering (ICSAE).

[14]  S. Stover,et al.  Biomechanical evaluation of two plating configurations for critical-sized defects of the mandible in dogs. , 2016, American journal of veterinary research.

[15]  P. Noritomi,et al.  Bridging Plate Development for Treatment of Segmental Bone Defects of the Canine Mandible , 2016, Journal of veterinary dentistry.

[16]  Yahya E Choonara,et al.  3D-printing and the effect on medical costs: a new era? , 2016, Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research.

[17]  Ethan L Nyberg,et al.  3D-Printing Technologies for Craniofacial Rehabilitation, Reconstruction, and Regeneration , 2016, Annals of Biomedical Engineering.

[18]  B. P. Kumar,et al.  Mandibular Reconstruction: Overview , 2016, Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery.

[19]  N. a. Erratum to: A retrospective study of 109 dogs with mandibular fractures by A. M. Kitshoff et al. (Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2013; 26: 1-5) , 2013, Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology.

[20]  R. Boudrieau Chapter 31 – Maxillofacial fracture repair using miniplates and screws , 2012 .

[21]  M. Ashby,et al.  The Elastic Moduli , 2012 .

[22]  H Tideman,et al.  Biomechanics of mandibular reconstruction: a review. , 2010, International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery.

[23]  F. Verstraete,et al.  Elastic training for the prevention of mandibular drift following mandibulectomy in dogs: 18 cases (2005-2008). , 2010, Veterinary surgery : VS.

[24]  Gilbert R Triplett,et al.  Reconstruction of Canine Mandibular Bone Defects Using a Bone Transport Reconstruction Plate , 2009, Annals of plastic surgery.

[25]  Georg N Duda,et al.  The challenge of establishing preclinical models for segmental bone defect research. , 2009, Biomaterials.

[26]  P. Buschang,et al.  Healing of the roots and surrounding structures after intentional damage with miniscrew implants. , 2009, American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics.

[27]  D. Blayney,et al.  Challenges and solutions. , 2007, Journal of oncology practice.

[28]  Byung-Ho Choi,et al.  Critical size defect in the canine mandible. , 2005, Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics.

[29]  F. Verstraete Mandibulectomy and maxillectomy. , 2005, The Veterinary clinics of North America. Small animal practice.

[30]  Daniel G Deschler,et al.  Mandibular reconstruction in 2004: an analysis of different techniques , 2004, Current opinion in otolaryngology & head and neck surgery.

[31]  H. Seeherman,et al.  Mandibular reconstruction of a partial hemimandibulectomy in a dog with severe malocclusion. , 2004, Veterinary surgery : VS.

[32]  Rainer Schmelzeisen,et al.  New innovations in craniomaxillofacial fixation: the 2.0 lock system. , 2003, The Keio journal of medicine.

[33]  A. Ayoub,et al.  Segmental mandibular reconstruction by microincremental automatic distraction osteogenesis: an animal study. , 2001, The British journal of oral & maxillofacial surgery.

[34]  서정헌,et al.  반도체 공정 overview , 2001 .

[35]  D. Klotch,et al.  Assessment of Plate Use for Mandibular Reconstruction: Has Changing Technology Made a Difference? , 1999, Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.

[36]  K. Blackwell,et al.  The bridging lateral mandibular reconstruction plate revisited. , 1999, Archives of otolaryngology--head & neck surgery.

[37]  B. Jónsson,et al.  Arced segmental mandibular regeneration by distraction osteogenesis. , 1998, Plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[38]  Mitsuo Niinomi,et al.  Mechanical properties of biomedical titanium alloys , 1998 .

[39]  M. Smith,et al.  Skull trauma and mandibular fractures. , 1995, The Veterinary clinics of North America. Small animal practice.

[40]  M. Sullivan,et al.  Mandibular reconstruction using vascularized bone grafts. , 1991, Otolaryngologic clinics of North America.

[41]  Ann L. Johnson,et al.  Mandibular fractures in the dog. A retrospective study of 157 cases. , 1990, Veterinary surgery : VS.

[42]  A. Komisar The functional result of mandibular reconstruction , 1990, The Laryngoscope.

[43]  D. Lewis Small animal dentistry , 1989, Veterinary Record.

[44]  Robert C. Wolpert,et al.  A Review of the , 1985 .

[45]  W. T. Wong A survey of fractures in the dog and cat in Malaysia , 1984, Veterinary Record.

[46]  I. R. Phillips A survey of bone fractures in the dog and cat. , 1979, The Journal of small animal practice.

[47]  K. Shadan,et al.  Available online: , 2012 .