• 1. Hill FW. A survey of bone fractures in the cat. J Small Anim Pract 1977; 18: 457463.

  • 2. Phillips IR. A survey of bone fractures in the dog and cat. J Small Anim Pract 1979; 20: 661674.

  • 3. Umphlet RC, Johnson AL. Mandibular fractures in the cat. A retrospective study. Vet Surg 1988;17:333337.

  • 4. Smith MM, Legendre LFJ. Maxillofacial fracture repair using noninvasive techniques. In: Verstraete FJM, Lommer MJ, eds. Oral and maxillofacial surgery in dogs and cats. New York: Elsevier, 2012; 275284.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5. Chandler JC, Beale BS. Feline orthopedics. Clin Tech Small Anim Pract 2002; 17: 190203.

  • 6. Lewis DD, Oakes MG, Kerwin SC, et al. Maxillary-mandibular wiring for the management of caudal mandibular fractures in two cats. J Small Anim Pract 1991; 32: 253257.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7. Nicholson I, Wyatt J, Radke H, et al. Treatment of caudal mandibular fracture and temporomandibular joint fracture-luxation using a bi-gnathic encircling and retaining device. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2010; 23: 102108.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8. Withrow SJ. Taping of the mandible in treatment of mandibular fractures. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 1981; 17: 2731.

  • 9. Boudrieau RJ. Maxillofacial fracture repair using miniplates and screws. In: Verstraete FJM, Lommer MJ, eds. Oral and maxillofacial surgery in dogs and cats. New York: Elsevier, 2012; 293308.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10. Champy M, Loddé JP, Schmitt R, et al. Mandibular osteosynthesis by miniature screwed plates via a buccal approach. J Maxillofac Surg 1978; 6: 1421.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11. Bilgili H, Kurum B. Treatment of fractures of the mandible and maxilla by mini titanium plate fixation systems in dogs and cats. Aust Vet J 2003; 81: 671673.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12. Boudrieau RJ, Kudisch M. Miniplate fixation for repair of mandibular and maxillary fractures in 15 dogs and 3 cats. Vet Surg 1996; 25: 277291.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13. Býlgýlý H, Orhun S. Comparative study on the effects of wire, polydioxanone, and mini titanium plate osteosynthesis materials on the healing of mandibular fractures: an experimental study in rabbits. Turk J Vet Anim Sci 2002; 26: 11091116.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14. Arzi B, Stover SM, Garcia TC, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of two plating configurations for critical-sized defects of the mandible in dogs. Am J Vet Res 2016; 77: 445451.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15. Härle F, Boudrieau RJ. Maxillofacial bone healing. In: Verstraete FJM, Lommer MJ, eds. Oral and maxillofacial surgery in dogs and cats. New York: Elsevier, 2012; 713.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16. Arzi B, Verstraete FJM. Internal fixation of severe maxillofacial fractures in dogs. Vet Surg 2015; 44: 437442.

  • 17. Arzi B, Cissell DD, Pollard RE, et al. Regenerative approach to bilateral rostral mandibular reconstruction in a case series of dogs. Front Vet Sci 2015; 2: 4.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18. Arzi B, Verstraete FJM, Huey DJ, et al. Regenerating mandibular bone using rhBMP-2: part 1—immediate reconstruction of segmental mandibulectomies. Vet Surg 2015; 44: 403409.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19. Brisceno CE, Rossouw PE, Carrillo R, et al. Healing of the roots and surrounding structures after intentional damage with miniscrew implants. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 135: 292301.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20. Fabbroni G, Aabed S, Mizen K, et al. Transalveolar screws and the incidence of dental damage: a prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2004; 33: 442446.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21. Renjen R, Maganzini AL, Rohrer MD, et al. Root and pulp response after intentional injury from miniscrew placement. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 136: 708714.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22. Gutwald R, Alpert B, Schmelzeisen R. Principle and stability of locking plates. Keio J Med 2003; 52: 2124.

  • 23. Uhl JM, Seguin B, Kapatkin AS, et al. Mechanical comparison of 3.5 mm broad dynamic compression plate, broad limited-contact dynamic compression plate, and narrow locking compression plate systems using interfragmentary gap models. Vet Surg 2008; 37: 663673.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24. Egol KA, Kubiak EN, Fulkerson E, et al. Biomechanics of locked plates and screws. J Orthop Trauma 2004; 18: 488493.

  • 25. Bourke J, Wroe S, Moreno K, et al. Effects of gape and tooth position on bite force and skull stress in the dingo (Canis lupus dingo) using a 3-dimensional finite element approach. PLoS One 2008; 3:e2200.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26. Christiansen P, Wroe S. Bite forces and evolutionary adaptations to feeding ecology in carnivores. Ecology 2007; 88: 347358.

  • 27. Wroe S, McHenry C, Thomason J. Bite club: comparative bite force in big biting mammals and the prediction of predatory behaviour in fossil taxa. Proc Biol Sci 2005; 272: 619625.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28. Sturgess K, Hurley K. Nutrition and welfare. In: Rochlitz I, ed. The welfare of cats. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer, 2007; 227257.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29. Ellis E. A study of 2 bone plating methods for fractures of the mandibular symphysis/body. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011; 69: 19781987.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30. Kroon FHM, Mathisson M, Cordey JR, et al. The use of miniplates in mandibular fractures. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 1991; 19: 199204.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 31. Rodrigues DC, Falci SG, Lauria A, et al. Mechanical and photoelastic analysis of four different fixation methods for mandibular body fractures. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2015; 43: 306311.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 32. Haug RH, Barber JE, Reifeis R. A comparison of mandibular angle fracture plating techniques. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1996; 82: 257263.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 33. Kravitz ND, Kusnoto B. Risks and complications of orthodontic miniscrews. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007; 131(suppl 4):S43S51.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 34. Gioso MA, Shofer F, Barros PS, et al. Mandible and mandibular first molar tooth measurements in dogs: relationship of radiographic height to body weight. J Vet Dent 2001; 18: 6568.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 35. Marretta SM. Maxillofacial fracture complications. In: Verstraete FJM, Lommer MJ, eds. Oral and maxillofacial surgery in dogs and cats. New York: Elsevier, 2012; 333341.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 36. Robinson PP, Loescher AR, Yates JM, et al. Current management of damage to the inferior alveolar and lingual nerves as a result of removal of third molars. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2004; 42: 285292.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Advertisement

Biomechanical evaluation of two plating configurations for fixation of a simple transverse caudal mandibular fracture model in cats

View More View Less
  • 1 Department of Surgical and Radiological Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California-Davis, Davis, CA 95616.
  • | 2 Department of Surgical and Radiological Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California-Davis, Davis, CA 95616.
  • | 3 Department of Anatomy, Physiology and Cell Biology, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California-Davis, Davis, CA 95616.
  • | 4 J.D. Wheat Veterinary Orthopedic Research Laboratory, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California-Davis, Davis, CA 95616.
  • | 5 J.D. Wheat Veterinary Orthopedic Research Laboratory, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California-Davis, Davis, CA 95616.
  • | 6 Department of Surgical and Radiological Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California-Davis, Davis, CA 95616.
  • | 7 Department of Surgical and Radiological Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California-Davis, Davis, CA 95616.
  • | 8 J.D. Wheat Veterinary Orthopedic Research Laboratory, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California-Davis, Davis, CA 95616.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE To evaluate biomechanical properties of intact feline mandibles, compared with those for mandibles with an experimentally created osteotomy that was stabilized with 1 of 2 internal fixation configurations.

SAMPLE 20 mandibles from 10 adult feline cadavers.

PROCEDURES An incomplete block study design was used to assign the mandibles of each cadaver to 2 of 3 groups (locking plate with locking screws [locking construct], locking plate with nonlocking screws [nonlocking construct], or intact). Within each cadaver, mandibles were randomly assigned to the assigned treatments. For mandibles assigned to the locking and nonlocking constructs, a simple transverse osteotomy was created caudal to the mandibular first molar tooth after plate application. All mandibles were loaded in cantilever bending in a single-load-to-failure test while simultaneously recording load and actuator displacement. Mode of failure (bone or plate failure) was recorded, and radiographic evidence of tooth root and mandibular canal damage was evaluated. Mechanical properties were compared among the 3 groups.

RESULTS Stiffness, bending moments, and most post-yield energies for mandibles with the locking and nonlocking constructs were significantly lower than those for intact mandibles. Peak bending moment and stiffness for mandibles with the locking construct were significantly greater than those for mandibles with the nonlocking construct. Mode of failure and frequency of screw damage to tooth roots and the mandibular canal did not differ between the locking and nonlocking constructs.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE Results indicated that both fixation constructs were mechanically inferior to intact mandibles. The locking construct was mechanically stronger than the nonlocking construct.

Contributor Notes

Address correspondence to Dr. Arzi (barzi@ucdavis.edu).