Evaluation of bending strength of five interdental fixation apparatuses applied to canine mandibles

Douglas A. Kern From the Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences (Kern, Smith), Virginia-Maryland Regional College of Veterinary Medicine, and the Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics (Grant), College of Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061. Dr. Rockhill is in private orthodontic practice at 2727 S Main St, Blacksburg, VA 24060.

Search for other papers by Douglas A. Kern in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM
,
Mark M. Smith From the Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences (Kern, Smith), Virginia-Maryland Regional College of Veterinary Medicine, and the Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics (Grant), College of Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061. Dr. Rockhill is in private orthodontic practice at 2727 S Main St, Blacksburg, VA 24060.

Search for other papers by Mark M. Smith in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 VMD
,
J. Wallace Grant From the Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences (Kern, Smith), Virginia-Maryland Regional College of Veterinary Medicine, and the Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics (Grant), College of Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061. Dr. Rockhill is in private orthodontic practice at 2727 S Main St, Blacksburg, VA 24060.

Search for other papers by J. Wallace Grant in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 PhD
, and
Amy D. Rockhill From the Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences (Kern, Smith), Virginia-Maryland Regional College of Veterinary Medicine, and the Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics (Grant), College of Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061. Dr. Rockhill is in private orthodontic practice at 2727 S Main St, Blacksburg, VA 24060.

Search for other papers by Amy D. Rockhill in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DDS

Click on author name to view affiliation information

Summary

Strength in bending was determined for interdental fixation apparatuses applied to hemimandibles obtained from 24 canine cadavers. Hemimandibles were osteotomized perpendicular to the long axis between the third and fourth premolars, and segments were stabilized with 1 of 5 interdental fixation apparatuses: Erich arch bar (eab, n = 6); Stout loop (sl, n = 6); acrylic (a, n = 6); Stout loop and acrylic (sla, n = 24); and Erich arch bar and acrylic (eaba, n = 6). Ultimate strengths (mean ± sem) of eab, sl, a, sla, and eaba were 395 ± 48; 523 ± 57; 1,106 ± 102; 1,306 ± 156; and 2,707 ± 504 N·m, respectively. Stiffness (mean ± sem) of eab, sl, a, sla, and eaba were 2,944 ± 357; 6,322 ± 2,201; 16,010 ± 5,017; 15,777 ± 1,026; and 27,079 ± 5,576 N·m/ radian, respectively. Yield strengths (mean ± sem) of eab, sl, a, sla, and eaba were 66 ± 6; 264 ± 19; 911 ± 126; 1,114 ± 159; and 1,855 ± 401 N·m, respectively. There were no significant differences in acrylic weight, cross-sectional area of the acrylic, or area moment of inertia of acrylic at the osteotomy site among a, sla, and eaba; and there were no significant differences in osteotomy surface area and area moment of inertia at the osteotomy site among all apparatuses (P > 0.05). The eaba apparatus had significantly higher mean ultimate strength, mean stiffness, and mean yield strength compared to other interdental fixation apparatuses. There were no significant differences in the mean ultimate strength, mean stiffness, or mean yield strength between eab and sl (P > 0.05). Apparatuses that combine acrylic with metal reinforcement (sla, eaba) were significantly stronger and stiffer than those that used metal alone (eab, sl) or acrylic alone (A).

Summary

Strength in bending was determined for interdental fixation apparatuses applied to hemimandibles obtained from 24 canine cadavers. Hemimandibles were osteotomized perpendicular to the long axis between the third and fourth premolars, and segments were stabilized with 1 of 5 interdental fixation apparatuses: Erich arch bar (eab, n = 6); Stout loop (sl, n = 6); acrylic (a, n = 6); Stout loop and acrylic (sla, n = 24); and Erich arch bar and acrylic (eaba, n = 6). Ultimate strengths (mean ± sem) of eab, sl, a, sla, and eaba were 395 ± 48; 523 ± 57; 1,106 ± 102; 1,306 ± 156; and 2,707 ± 504 N·m, respectively. Stiffness (mean ± sem) of eab, sl, a, sla, and eaba were 2,944 ± 357; 6,322 ± 2,201; 16,010 ± 5,017; 15,777 ± 1,026; and 27,079 ± 5,576 N·m/ radian, respectively. Yield strengths (mean ± sem) of eab, sl, a, sla, and eaba were 66 ± 6; 264 ± 19; 911 ± 126; 1,114 ± 159; and 1,855 ± 401 N·m, respectively. There were no significant differences in acrylic weight, cross-sectional area of the acrylic, or area moment of inertia of acrylic at the osteotomy site among a, sla, and eaba; and there were no significant differences in osteotomy surface area and area moment of inertia at the osteotomy site among all apparatuses (P > 0.05). The eaba apparatus had significantly higher mean ultimate strength, mean stiffness, and mean yield strength compared to other interdental fixation apparatuses. There were no significant differences in the mean ultimate strength, mean stiffness, or mean yield strength between eab and sl (P > 0.05). Apparatuses that combine acrylic with metal reinforcement (sla, eaba) were significantly stronger and stiffer than those that used metal alone (eab, sl) or acrylic alone (A).

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 51 51 13
PDF Downloads 24 24 11
Advertisement