Download PDF
Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2013; 26(06): 461-468
DOI: 10.3415/VCOT-12-11-0140
Original Research
Schattauer GmbH

The comparative biomechanics of the reinforced interdental crossover and the Stout loop composite splints for mandibular fracture repair in dogs

A. M. Kitshoff
1   Section of Small Animal Surgery, Department of Companion Animal Clinical Studies, Onderstepoort Veterinary Academic Hospital, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, Onderstepoort, South Africa
2   Department of Small Animal Medicine and Clinical Biology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Merelbeke, Belgium
,
H. de Rooster
2   Department of Small Animal Medicine and Clinical Biology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Merelbeke, Belgium
,
S. M. Ferreira
3   Large Mammal Ecologist, Scientific Services, SANParks, Skukuza, South Africa
,
D. Burger
4   Department of Mechanical and Aeronautical Engineering, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa
,
G. Steenkamp
1   Section of Small Animal Surgery, Department of Companion Animal Clinical Studies, Onderstepoort Veterinary Academic Hospital, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, Onderstepoort, South Africa
› Author AffiliationsThe authors would like to thank 3M South Africa for sponsoring the Protemp 4 used in this study. The project was financed by the Department of Companion Animal Clinical Studies Research Fund, Onderstepoort, Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Pretoria, South Africa.
Further Information

Publication History

Received: 14 November 2012

Accepted: 14 July 2013

Publication Date:
04 January 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Summary

Objectives: To describe a new technique, the reinforced interdental crossover composite splint (RIC), for transverse mandibular fracture repair in dogs. This technique was compared biomechanically with the established reinforced interdental Stout loop composite splint (RIS) technique.

Methods: Six pairs of mandibles from young adult small breed dogs were used for the study. Osteotomies were created in a standardized fashion and fixed with either RIC or RIS. All composite splint constructs were tested biomechanically with a cantilever bending force, using a single column testing machine at a rate of 2 mm/min. The time of application, amount of composite used, ultimate force, stiffness, total displacement, and total energy absorbed during displacement of the rostral mandibular segment were calculated and compared between the two groups.

Results: No significant difference was found when comparing the time of application of the RIC and the RIS techniques. All implants failed by either composite resin fracture over the region of the osteotomy or by fracture between the first and second molar followed by detachment of the resin from the lingual enamel surface of the first molar. Differences between the RIC and RIS in force (80.5 N ± 40.3 and 51.8 N ± 27.4. respectively) and stiffness (16.2 N/mm ± 4.4 and 10.1 N/mm ± 4.1 respectively) were significant (p = 0.03). However differences between the two techniques in displacement and total energy absorbed were not significant.

Clinical significance: In experimentally fractured mandibles of young adult dogs there is evidence that RIC is biomechanically similar to RIS.

Keywords

Composite - dog - interdental wire - mandibular fracture - resin splint

 

  • References

  • 1 Phillips IR. A survey of bone fractures in the dog and cat. J Small Anim Pract 1979; 20: 661-674.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Wong WT. A survey of fractures in the dog and cat in Malaysia. Vet Rec 1984; 115: 273-274.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Lopes FM, Gioso MA, Ferro DG. et al. Oral fractures in dogs of Brazil-a retrospective study. J Vet Dent 2005; 22: 86-90.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Kitshoff AM, de Rooster H, Ferreira SM. et al. A retrospective study of 109 dogs with mandibular fractures. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2013; 26: 1-5.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Umphlet RC, Johnson AL. Mandibular fractures in the dog. A retrospective study of 157 cases. J Vet Surg 1990; 19: 272-275.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Smith M, Legendre L. Maxillofacial fracture repair using noninvasive techniques. In: Verstraete FJM, Lommer MJ, Bezuidenhout AJ. editors. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery in Dogs and Cats. Edinburgh: Saunders/Elsevier; 2012. p. 2012-275.
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Verstraete FJM. Maxillofacial fractures. In: Slatter DH. editor. Textbook of Small Animal Surgery. Volume - 2. Philadelphia: Saunders; 2003. p. 2003-2190.
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Verstraete FJM. Maxillofacial fractures. In: Holmstrom SE, Frost P, Eisner ER. editors. Veterinary Dental Techniques for the Small Animal Practitioner. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders; 2004. p. 2004-559.
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Scott H. The skull and mandible. In: Coughlan AR, Miller A. editors. BSAVA Manual of Small Animal Fracture Repair and Management. Cheltenham: British Small Animal Veterinary Association; 1998. p. 1998-115.
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Glyde M, Lidbetter D. Management of fractures of the mandible in small animals. In Practice 2003; 25: 570-585.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Evans HE. The skeleton. In: Miller ME, Evans HE. editors. Miller's Anatomy of the Dog. Philadelphia: Saunders; 1993. p. 1993-122.
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Evans H. The heart and arteries. In: Miller ME, Evans HE. editors. Miller's Anatomy of the Dog. Philadelphia: Saunders; 1993. p. 1993-586.
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Manfra Marretta S. Maxillofacial fracture complications. In: Verstraete FJM, Lommer MJ, Bezuidenhout AJ. editors. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery in Dogs and Cats. Edinburgh: Saunders/Elsevier; 2012. p. 2012-333.
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Smith MM, Massoudi LM. Potential attachment area of the first mandibular molar in dogs. Am J Vet Res 1992; 53: 258-261.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Weigel JP. Trauma to oral structures. In: Harvey CE. editor. Veterinary Dentistry. Philadelphia: WB Saunders 1987; 140-155.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Kern DA, Smith MM, Grant JW. et al. Evaluation of bending strength of five interdental fixation apparatuses applied to canine mandibles. Am J Vet Res 1993; 54: 1177-1182.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Roe SC, Pijanowski GJ, Johnson AL. Biomechanical properties of canine cortical bone allografts: effects of preparation and storage. Am J Vet Res 1988; 49: 873-877.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Hoffer M, Marretta SM, Kurath P. et al. Evaluation of composite resin materials for maxillomandibular fixation in cats for treatment of jaw fractures and temporomandibular joint luxations. Vet Surg 2011; 40: 357-368.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Cook WT, Smith MM, Markel MD. et al. Influence of an interdental full pin on stability of an acrylic external fixator for rostral mandibular fractures in dogs. Am J Vet Res 2001; 62: 576-580.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Purves RD. Optimum numerical integration methods for the estimation of area-under-the-curve (AUC) and area-under-the-moment-curve (AUMC). J Pharmacokinet Bioparm 1992; 20: 211-226.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Burnham KP, Anderson DR. Multimodel interference: Understanding AIC and BIC in model selection. Socio Method Res 2004; 33: 261-304.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Norsworthy GD, Miller DC. Mandibular fracture repair using an acrylic splint. Canine Pract 1977; 4: 36-37.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Boudrieau RJ. Mandibular and maxillofacial fractures. In: Tobias KM, Johnston SA. editors. Veterinary Surgery: Small Animal. 1. St. Louis, Missouri: Elsevier, Suanders; 2012. p. 1054-1077.
    Google Scholar
  • 24 Manfra Marretta S, Schrader SC, Matthiesen DT. Problems associated with the management and treatment of jaw fractures. Probl Vet Med 1990; 2: 220-247.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Craig RG, Powers J. Bonding to dental materials. In: Craig RG, Powers J. editors. Restorative dental materials. St Louis: Mosby; 2002. p. 2002-264.
    Google Scholar
  • 26 ESPE Dental Products. Protemp 4 Temporization Material Technical Data Sheet [document on the internet]. Seefeld, Germany: 3M ESPE AG; 2008. [cited 2012 November 7]. Available from: http://multimedia.3m.com/mws/mediawebserver?mwsId=66666UF6EVsSyXTtNXfXoxTEEVtQEVs6EVs6EVs6E666666--&fn=protemp_4_tds_ebu.pdf
    Google Scholar
  • 27 Lieu C, Nguyen TM, Payant L. In vitro comparison of peak polymerization temperatures of 5 provisional restoration resins. J Can Dent Assoc 2001; 67: 36-39.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Legendre L. Intraoral acrylic splints for maxillofacial fracture repair. J Vet Dent 2003; 20: 70-78.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Kurtzman GM, Strassler HE. Provisional fixed restorations. Dental Economics 2006; 3: 1-12.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Keller T, Liebschner M. Tensile and Compression Testing of Bone. In: An Y, Draughn R. editors. Mechanical Testing of Bone and the Bone-Implant Interface. New York, Washington, USA: CRC Press; 1999. p. 1999-175.
    Google Scholar
  • 31 Burns DR, Beck DA, Nelson SK. A review of selected dental literature on contemporary provisional fixed prosthodontic treatment: Report of the Committee on Research in Fixed Prosthodontics of the Academy of Fixed Prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent 2003; 90: 474-497.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Glasspoole EA, Erickson RL, Davidson CL. Effect of enamel pretreatments on bond strength of compomer. Dent Mat 2001; 17: 402-408.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 An Y. Mechanical Properties of Bone. In: An Y, Draughn R. editors. Mechanical Testing of Bone and the Bone-Implant Interface. Danvers, USA: CRC Press; 1999. p. 1999-41.
    Google Scholar
  • 34 Cross AR. Fracture biology and biomechanics. In: Tobias KM, Johnston SA. editors. Veterinary Surgery: Small Animal. Volume 1. St. Louis, Missouri: Elsevier Saunders; 2011. p. 2011-565.
    Google Scholar
  • 35 Lopez MJ, Markel MD. Bending tests of bone. In: An Y, Draughn R. editors. Mechanical Testing of Bone and the Bone-Implant Interface. New York, Washington, USA: CRC Press; 1999. p. 1999-207.
    Google Scholar