Page 587 - IJB-10-6

International Journal of Bioprinting Biomechanical analysis of mandibular implants

future research is essential to ensure the internal Conflict of interest
integrity of the specimens and accurately assess their
mechanical performance. In addition, future studies All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
should involve more comprehensive analyses, such Author contributions
as dynamic occlusion tests, animal experiments,
and even clinical research, to explore the long-term Conceptualization: Lih-Jyh Fuh, Heng-Li Huang
usability and success rate of mandibular implants in Data curation: Hao Zhang
animals or humans. Formal analysis: Hao Zhang
Funding acquisition: Heng-Li Huang
5. Conclusion Investigation: Hao Zhang, Heng-Li Huang
Methodology: Hao Zhang, Heng-Li Huang
Compared with the tetrahedron and hex-star lattice Project administration: Heng-Li Huang
designs, the quad-diametral-cross and hex-vase designs Resources: Lih-Jyh Fuh
exhibited fewer high-stress regions. According to the in Software: Jui-Ting Hsu, Lih-Jyh Fuh
vitro experimental results, when the rod diameter of the Supervision: Heng-Li Huang
lattice structure increased, the overall elastic modulus of Validation: Jui-Ting Hsu, Heng-Li Huang
the structure significantly increased. Regardless of whether Writing – original draft: Hao Zhang, Heng-Li Huang
quad-diametral-cross or hex-vase design was used, the Writing – review & editing: Hao Zhang, Zhe-Min Lim,
maximum stress observed in the mandibular implant did Heng-Li Huang
not exceed the yield strength of Ti6Al4V (910 MPa). These
findings indicate that the proposed mandibular implant Ethics approval and consent to participate
was not at risk of plastic deformation or immediate failure.
When the elastic modulus of the mandibular implant The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the
decreased, the frictional stress observed at the interface Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional
between the abutment and the implant increased, which Review Board of China Medical University Hospital
presumably increased the risk of interface wear. In addition, (protocol code: CMUH110-REC2-247).
the maximum strain observed in the surrounding bone of Consent for publication
the mandibular implant was within 1500–3000 µstrain.
These results indicate that, in the presence of appropriate Not applicable.
occlusal forces, the proposed mandibular implant did not
cause immediate damage and promoted growth of the Availability of data
surrounding bone. However, there are still some limitations The datasets generated and/or analyzed in this study
in this study, particularly in the final step where the finite are available from the corresponding author upon
element simulation of the mandibular implants was reasonable request.
conducted using only the material properties of different
lattice structures for biomechanical analysis. In this regard, References
future research can incorporate the actual 3D structure of
the lattice into the finite element model for more advanced 1. Seikaly H, Chau J, Li F, et al. Bone that best matches the
analysis, as well as include in vitro or animal experiments to properties of the mandible. J Otolaryngol. 2003;32(4):262-265.
verify the clinical applicability of the findings. Additionally, doi: 10.2310/7070.2003.41646
simulating the biomechanical properties of the implant 2. Bak M, Jacobson AS, Buchbinder D, Urken ML.
warrants further evaluation through in vitro testing and Contemporary reconstruction of the mandible. Oral Oncol.
printing of its final configuration. 2010;46(2):71-76.
doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2009.11.006
Acknowledgments 3. Schlueter B, Kim KB, Oliver D, Sortiropoulos G. Cone beam
None computed tomography 3D reconstruction of the mandibular
condyle. Angle Orthod. 2008;78(5):880-888.
doi: 10.2319/072007-339.1
Funding
4. van Baar GJC, Forouzanfar T, Liberton NPTJ, Winters
This study was supported by the Ministry of HAH, Leusink FKJ. Accuracy of computer-assisted
Science and Technology, Taiwan (Project No. surgery in mandibular reconstruction: a systematic review.
MOST 111-2221-E-039-008-MY2). Oral Oncol. 2018;84:52-60.

Volume 10 Issue 6 (2024) 579 doi: 10.36922/ijb.3943