Special Issue "Numerical and Biomechanical Analysis in Bioengineering"

A special issue of Materials (ISSN 1996-1944). This special issue belongs to the section "Biomaterials".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: 30 June 2021.

Special Issue Editor

Prof. Marcin Kozakiewicz
Website
Guest Editor
Medical University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland
Interests: maxillofacial surgery; traumatology; deformation treatment; head and neck oncology; infections treatment; human orbital reconstructions; mandibular condyle fixing material; custom-made temporomandibular joint replacements; bone substitute materials; implantology; surgery-first facial deformation algorithm

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues, Friends, Scientists,

Maxillofacial surgery is a rapidly developing domain. Traumatology and orthognathic surgery are the “parents” of this field, and thus, osteosynthesis is still the main tool in our hands. Dozens of dedicated plates for mandible condyle fixation, hundreds of plates of 1.5, 2.0, 2.4 or 2.7 systems, and multiple screws (locking, compressing) are used today—and to make it even harder to choose the right one, polymer, titanium or resorbable alloys materials are widespread. This Special Issue aims to encourage scientists to take on the challenge and help to choose the best, most effective, most promising, and most suitable strategy for treating people by publishing the results of material tests. I would also like to encourage you to test your custom implants (TMJ replacements, orthognathic plates, personalized onlay implants, etc.), which are possible to make thanks to the good availability of CAD/CAM techniques. Subtractive and additive manufacture methods of special material for maxillofacial surgery should be analyzed.

This Special Issue aims to focus the maxillofacial osteosynthesis.

It is my pleasure to invite you to submit a manuscript for this Special Issue. Full papers, communications, and reviews are welcome.

Prof. Marcin Kozakiewicz
Guest Editor

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All papers will be peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Materials is an international peer-reviewed open access semimonthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2000 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • Cranio-maxillofacial surgery
  • Facial skeleton
  • Materials, polymers, alloys
  • Plates, screws, meshes
  • Individual implants, personalized plates, templates
  • Alloplastic replacement of temporomandibular joint
  • Resorbable osteosynthesis
  • Biomechanics
  • Surgical techniques
  • Imaging modalities
  • Validation

Published Papers (3 papers)

Order results
Result details
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

Jump to: Review

Open AccessArticle
New Oral Surgery Materials for Bone Reconstruction—A Comparison of Five Bone Substitute Materials for Dentoalveolar Augmentation
Materials 2020, 13(13), 2935; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13132935 - 30 Jun 2020
Abstract
This article presents a comparison of bone replacement materials in terms of their ability to produce living bone image at the place of their implantation. Five bone replacement materials are compared (Osteovit—porous collagen, Cerasorb Foam—collagen scaffolding of synthetic β tricalcium phosphate, Osbone—synthetic hydroxyapatite, [...] Read more.
This article presents a comparison of bone replacement materials in terms of their ability to produce living bone image at the place of their implantation. Five bone replacement materials are compared (Osteovit—porous collagen, Cerasorb Foam—collagen scaffolding of synthetic β tricalcium phosphate, Osbone—synthetic hydroxyapatite, Endobone—deproteinized bovine-derived cancellous bone hydroxyapatite, and Cerasorb—synthetic β tricalcium phosphate). Intraoral radiographs are taken immediately after implantation and 12 months later. The texture analysis was performed to assess (texture index, TI) the level of structure chaos (entropy) in relation to the presence of longitudinal elements visible in radiographs (run length emphasis moment). The reference ratio of the chaotic trabecular pattern (Entropy) to the number of longitudinal structures, i.e., trabeculae (LngREmph), is 176:100 (i.e., 1.76 ± 0.28). Radiological homogeneity immediately after the implantation procedure is a result of the similar shape of its particles (Osbone, Endobone and Cerasorb) or radiolucency (Osteovit, Cerasorb Foam). The particles visible in radiographs were similar in the LngREmph parameters applied to the reference bone, but not in the co-occurrence matrix features. The TI for Osteovit during a 12-month follow-up period changed from 1.55 ± 0.26 to 1.48 ± 0.26 (p > 0.05), for Cerasorb Foam from 1.82 ± 0.27 to 1.63 ± 0.24 (p < 0.05), for Osbone from 1.97 ± 0.31 to 1.74 ± 0.30 (p < 0.01), and for Endobone from 1.86 ± 0.25 to 1.84 ± 0.25 (p > 0.05), The observed structure in the radiological image of bone substitute materials containing calcium phosphates obtains the characteristics of a living bone image after twelve months. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Numerical and Biomechanical Analysis in Bioengineering)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessArticle
Are Magnesium Screws Proper for Mandibular Condyle Head Osteosynthesis?
Materials 2020, 13(11), 2641; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13112641 - 10 Jun 2020
Abstract
Recently, magnesium alloys have gained a significant amount of recognition as potential biomaterials for degradable implants for craniofacial bone screws. Purpose: The aim of this work was to compare screws made specifically for mandibular head osteosynthesis from different materials. Materials and Methods: Screws [...] Read more.
Recently, magnesium alloys have gained a significant amount of recognition as potential biomaterials for degradable implants for craniofacial bone screws. Purpose: The aim of this work was to compare screws made specifically for mandibular head osteosynthesis from different materials. Materials and Methods: Screws measuring 14 mm made by one manufacturer specifically for mandibular head osteosynthesis out of the following materials were selected: magnesium (MgYREZr), titanium (Ti6Al7Nb), and polymer (PLGA). The axial pull-out strength and torsional properties were investigated. Results: Each type of screw presented different pull-out forces (Kruskal–Wallis test, p < 0.001). The magnesium screw had the highest pull-out force of 399 N (cracked without the screw out being pulled out), followed by the titanium screw, with a force of 340 N, and the PLGA screw, with a force of 138 N (always cracked at the base of the screw head without the screw being pulled out). ANOVA was performed for the maximal torques before damage to the screw (torsional properties), revealing that the maximal torque of the magnesium screw was 16 N·cm, while that of the titanium screw was 19 N·cm. The magnesium screw was significantly weaker than the titanium screw (p < 0.05). The measured torque and pull-out force were not related to each other (p > 0.05). Conclusion: Among the screws compared, the metal biodegradable magnesium screw seems to be the most suitable material for multiscrew mandibular head osteosynthesis, considering the condition of the fragile screwdriver socket. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Numerical and Biomechanical Analysis in Bioengineering)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Review

Jump to: Research

Open AccessReview
Application of Finite Element Analysis in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery—A Literature Review
Materials 2020, 13(14), 3063; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13143063 - 09 Jul 2020
Abstract
In recent years in the field of biomechanics, the intensive development of various experimental methods has been observed. The implementation of virtual studies that for a long time have been successfully used in technical sciences also represents a new trend in dental engineering. [...] Read more.
In recent years in the field of biomechanics, the intensive development of various experimental methods has been observed. The implementation of virtual studies that for a long time have been successfully used in technical sciences also represents a new trend in dental engineering. Among these methods, finite element analysis (FEA) deserves special attention. FEA is a method used to analyze stresses and strains in complex mechanical systems. It enables the mathematical conversion and analysis of mechanical properties of a geometric object. Since the mechanical properties of the human skeleton cannot be examined in vivo, a discipline in which FEA has found particular application is oral and maxillofacial surgery. In this review we summarize the application of FEA in particular oral and maxillofacial fields such as traumatology, orthognathic surgery, reconstructive surgery and implantology presented in the current literature. Based on the available literature, we discuss the methodology and results of research where FEA has been used to understand the pathomechanism of fractures, identify optimal osteosynthesis methods, plan reconstructive operations and design intraosseous implants or osteosynthesis elements. As well as indicating the benefits of FEA in mechanical parameter analysis, we also point out the assumptions and simplifications that are commonly used. The understanding of FEA’s opportunities and advantages as well as its limitations and main flaws is crucial to fully exploit its potential. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Numerical and Biomechanical Analysis in Bioengineering)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Back to TopTop