Download PDF
Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1998; 11(01): 53-58
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1632609
Original Research
Schattauer GmbH

Flexural and Torsional Analysis of Five Acrylics for Use in External Skeletal Fixation

M. Davis
1   From the Department of Small Animal Medicine and Surgery, Texas A & M University, USA
,
K. S. Schulz
1   From the Department of Small Animal Medicine and Surgery, Texas A & M University, USA
,
A. Fawcett
2   From the Texas Engineering Experiment Station, Texas A & M University, USA
,
Margaret R. Slater
1   From the Department of Small Animal Medicine and Surgery, Texas A & M University, USA
,
J. B. Roths
3   The Department of Veterinary Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Texas A & M University, USA
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Received 08 July 1997

Accepted 21 September 1997

Publication Date:
09 February 2018 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

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.

Keywords

Acrylics - external skeletal fixation - mechanical analysis
 

  • 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.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Huskies R. Chao E. Guidelines for External Frame Stiffness and Stresses. Journal of Orthopaedic Research 1986; Vol 4 (01) 68-75.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Tomlinson J, Constantinescu G. Acrylic External Skeletal Fixation of Fractures. The Compendium 1991; Vol 13 (02) 235-40.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 International Standard Organization: Plastics – Determination of Flexural Properties. Standard ISO. 1993; (E) 178.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Osman Y, Owen C. Flexural Strength of Provisional Restorative Materials. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 1993; Vol 70 1 94-6.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Vallittu P, Lassila V, Lappalainen R. Transverse Strength and Fatigue of Denture Acrylic-Glass Fiber Composite. Dental Materials 1994; 10: 116-21.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Gates E, Carter D, Harris W. Tensile Fatigue Failure of acrylic Bone Cement. Journal of Biomechanical Engineering 1983; Vol 105: 393-7.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Gates E, Carter D, Harris W. Comparative Fatigue Behavior of Different Bone Cements. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 1984; 189: 294-9.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Hansen D, Steen-Jansen J. Additional Mechanical Tests of Bone Cements. Acta Orthopaedica Belgica 1992; Vol 58 (03) 268-71.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Alkire M, Dabezies E, Hastings P. High Vacuum as a Method of Reducing Porosity of Polymethylmethacrylate. Orthopedics 1987; Vol 10 (11) 1533-9.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Lidgran L, Drar H, Moller J. Strength of Polymethylmethacrylate Increased By Vacuum Mixing. Acta Orthopaedica Scand 1984; 55: 536-40.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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.
    Google Scholar
  • 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.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar