Page 620 - IJB-10-3

International Journal of Bioprinting Wireless module system applied on 3D-printed implant

Table 2. Strains obtained from wireless system at point A of load decreased. However, the fatigue loading cycles for the
cantilever and at point B derived from data log, and validated same load applied on the molars were higher compared
percentage error to those on the premolars. Figure 7 shows that the failure
patterns were the ramus fracture for the reconstructive
Strain (ue)
plastic mandible under high applied loads even applied on
A B A/B Error (%) the premolar or molar after fatigue tests.
Test 1 -327.6 -151.5 2.16 16
Test 2 -327.0 -152.6 2.14 14 4. Discussion
Test 3 -330.1 -154.9 2.13 13 In recent years, the combination of sensors with implants
and wearable devices to detect various physiological signals
Test 4 -322.7 -148.5 2.17 17
has emerged as an important research topic. 16,21 Commonly
Test 5 -324.2 -150.3 2.16 16 used sensors include accelerometers, gyroscopes, and strain
Average -326.3 -151.6 2.15 15.2 gauges. However, accelerometers and gyroscopes are mostly
utilized in wearable devices due to their larger size. 16,21
Std. 2.9 2.4 0.015
While wearable devices equipped with these sensors can

Figure 6. Biomechanical fatigue tests results for (a) average strain values vs. applied loads on the premolar/molar; (b) fatigue loading cycles vs. applied
loads on the premolar/molar.

Volume 10 Issue 3 (2024) 612 doi: 10.36922/ijb.2553