RSS-Feed abonnieren
PDF herunterladen
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1632609
Flexural and Torsional Analysis of Five Acrylics for Use in External Skeletal Fixation
Publikationsverlauf
Received 08. Juli 1997
Accepted 21. September 1997
Publikationsdatum:
09. Februar 2018 (online)
Summary
Mechanical testing of five acrylics was performed to evaluate material property differences that might affect their use as support rods in external skeletal fixation (ESF). Flexural and torsional analysis demonstrated that differences existed in the stiffness of the acrylics with polyethyl/polymethylmethacrylate products being the stiffest and a polyethylmethacrylate product being least stiff. Increasing the amount of inert filler also increased the stiffness. The inherent porosity of the individual acrylics did not have an effect on their mechanical properties. These differences in stiffness might affect fracture healing by affecting the amount of primary or secondary osteosynthesis that occurs.
Different polymeric forms of acrylic possess mechanical properties that influence their stiffness. Based on flexural and torsional analysis, these properties may differ significantly and affect external skeletal fixator stiffness.
Presented at the twenty-fourth annual meeting of the Veterinary Orthopedic Society, Big Sky, MT March 2-8, 1997.
-
REFERENCES
- 1 O’Sullivan M, Chao E, Kelly P.. The Effects of Fixation on Fracture-Healing. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 1989; Vol 71A (02) 306-10.
- 2 Wu J, Shyr H, Chao E, Kelly P. Comparison of Osteotomy Healing Under External Fixation Devices with Different Stiffness Characteristics. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 1984; Vol 66A (08) 1258-64.
- 3 Huskies R. Chao E. Guidelines for External Frame Stiffness and Stresses. Journal of Orthopaedic Research 1986; Vol 4 (01) 68-75.
- 4 Crockett D. Rigid Fixation of Bones of the Hand Using K Wires Bonded With Acrylic Resin. The Hand 1974; Vol 6 (01) 106-7.
- 5 Ross JT, Matthiesen DT. The Use of Multiple Pin and Methylmethacrylate External Skeletal Fixation for the Treatment of Orthopaedic Injuries in the Dog and Cat. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1993; 6: 115-21.
- 6 Tomlinson J, Constantinescu G. Acrylic External Skeletal Fixation of Fractures. The Compendium 1991; Vol 13 (02) 235-40.
- 7 Okrasinski E, Pardo A, Graehler R. Biomechanical Evaluation of Acrylic External Skeletal Fixation in Dogs and Cats. JAVMA 1991; Vol 199 (11) 1590-3.
- 8 Wilier R, Egger E, Histand M. Comparison of Stainless Steel Versus Acrylic for the Connecting Bar of External Skeletal Fixators. JAAHA 1991; Vol 2 (07) 541-8.
- 9 American Society of Testing and Materials: Standard Classification System for Poly (Methyl Methacrylate) (PMMA) Moulding and Extrusion Compounds. D 788-93. Annual Book of ASTM Standards. 1993
- 10 International Standard Organization: Plastics – Determination of Flexural Properties. Standard ISO. 1993; (E) 178.
- 11 Osman Y, Owen C. Flexural Strength of Provisional Restorative Materials. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 1993; Vol 70 1 94-6.
- 12 Kern D, Smith M, Grant J, Rockhill A. Evaluation of Bending Strength of Five Interdental Fixation Apparatuses Applied to Canine Mandibles. AJVR 1993; Vol 54 (07) 1177-82.
- 13 Vallittu P, Lassila V, Lappalainen R. Transverse Strength and Fatigue of Denture Acrylic-Glass Fiber Composite. Dental Materials 1994; 10: 116-21.
- 14 Menis D, Gilbert J, Wixson R, Lautenshlager E. Four-Point Bend Fatigue of Simplex- P and the Simplex-p/Bone Interface. Northwestern Dental Research 1991; 3: 18-9.
- 15 Davies J, O’Connor D, Greer J, Harris W. Comparison of the Mechanical Properties of Simplex P, Zimmer Regular, and LVC Bone Cements. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research 1987; Vol 21: 719-30.
- 16 Gates E, Carter D, Harris W. Tensile Fatigue Failure of acrylic Bone Cement. Journal of Biomechanical Engineering 1983; Vol 105: 393-7.
- 17 Gates E, Carter D, Harris W. Comparative Fatigue Behavior of Different Bone Cements. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 1984; 189: 294-9.
- 18 Hansen D, Steen-Jansen J. Additional Mechanical Tests of Bone Cements. Acta Orthopaedica Belgica 1992; Vol 58 (03) 268-71.
- 19 Palmer R, Hulse D, Hyman W, Palmer D. Principles of Bone Healing and Biomechanics of External Skeletal Fixation. Vet Clinics of NA: Small Animal 1992; Vol 22 (01) 45-68.
- 20 Alkire M, Dabezies E, Hastings P. High Vacuum as a Method of Reducing Porosity of Polymethylmethacrylate. Orthopedics 1987; Vol 10 (11) 1533-9.
- 21 Lidgran L, Drar H, Moller J. Strength of Polymethylmethacrylate Increased By Vacuum Mixing. Acta Orthopaedica Scand 1984; 55: 536-40.
- 22 Davies J, Jasty M, O’connor D, Burke D, Harrigan T, Harris W. The Effect of Centrifuging Bone Cement. J Bone and Joint Surg [Br] 1989; Vol 71 (01) 39-42.
- 23 Perren S. Primary Bone Healing. In Disease Mechanisms in Small Animal Surgery, 2nd ed.. Bojrab M. (ed). Philadelphia, PA: Lea & Febiger; 1993: 663-70.
- 24 Cheal E, Mansmann A, DiGioa A, Hayes W, Perren S. Role of Interfragmentary Strain in Fracture Healing: Ovine Model of a Healing Osteotomy. Journal of Orthopedic Research 1991; 9: 131-42.
- 25 Aron D, Johnson A, Palmer R. Biological Strategies and a Balanced Concept For Repair of Highly Comminuted Long Bone Fractures. The Compendium 1995; Vol 17 (01) 35-49.