Design Criteria for Patient-specific Mandibular Continuity Defect Reconstructed Implant with Lightweight Structure using Weighted Topology Optimization and Validated with Biomechanical Fatigue Testing
This study developed design criterion for patient-specific reconstructed implants with appearance consideration and structural optimization of various mandibular continuity defects. The different mandible continuity defects include C (from left to right canines), B (from 1st premolar to 3rd molar), and A (from 3rd molar to ramus) segments defined based on the mandible image. The finite element (FE) analysis and weighted topology optimization methods were combined to design internal support beam structures within different reconstructed implants with corresponding occlusal conditions. Five continuity mandibular defects (single B/C/A+B and combination of B+C and B+C+B segments) were restored using additive manufacturing (AM) reconstructed implant and bone plate to confirm reasonable design criterion through biomechanical fatigue testing. The worst mandible strength was filtered based on the material mechanics and results from segmental bone length, thickness, and height statistics from the established database containing mandible images of 105 patients. The weighted optimization analysis results indicated that the sizes and positions of internal supporting beams within the reconstructed C, B, and A+B implants can be defined parametrically through corresponding segmental bone length, width, and height. The FE analysis found that the weight variation percentage between the parametric designed implants and original core solid implants in the C, B, and A+B was reduced by 54.3%, 63.7%, and 69.7%, respectively. The maximum stress values of the reconstructed implant and the remaining bone were not obviously reduced but the stress values were far lower than the material ultimate strength. The biomechanical fatigue testing indicated that all cases using the AM reconstructed implant could pass the 250,000 dynamic load. However, condyle head, bone plate fracture, and bone screw loosening could be found in cases using bone plates. This study developed a design criterion for patient-specific reconstructed implants for various mandibular continuity defects applicable for AM to further clinical use.
1. Patel A, Harrison P, Cheng A, et al., 2019, Fibular Reconstruction of the Maxilla and Mandible with Immediate Implant-Supported Prosthetic Rehabilitation: Jaw in a Day. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am, 31:369–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coms.2019.03.002
2. Toure G, Gouet E, 2019, Use of a 3-Dimensional Custom-Made Porous Titanium Prosthesis for Mandibular Body Reconstruction with Prosthetic Dental Rehabilitation and Lipofilling. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 77:1305–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2018.12.026
3. Qin M, Liu Y, Wang L, et al., 2015, Design and Optimization of the Fixing Plate for Customized Mandible Implants. J Craniomaxillofac, 43:1296–302.
4. Stoor P, Suomalainen A, Mesimaki K, et al., 2017, Rapid Prototyped Patient Specific Guiding Implants in Critical Mandibular Reconstruction. J Craniomaxillofac Surg, 45:63–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2016.10.021
5. Lee S, Kim HG, Ham MJ, et al., 2018, Custom Implant for Reconstruction of Mandibular Continuity Defect. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 76:1370–6.
6. Yusa K, Yamanouchi H, Yoshida Y, et al., 2017, Evaluation of Quality of Life and Masticatory Function in Patients Treated with Mandibular Reconstruction Followed by Occlusal Rehabilitation with Dental Implants: A Preliminary Report. J Oral Maxillofac Surg Med Pathol, 29:499–503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajoms.2017.06.004
7. Liu YF, Fan YY, Jiang XF, et al., 2017, A Customized Fixation Plate with Novel Structure Designed by Topological Optimization for Mandibular Angle Fracture Based on Finite Element Analysis. Biomed Eng Online, 16:131–47. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12938-017-0422-z
8. Cheng K, Liu Y, Yao C, et al., 2019, A Personalized Mandibular Implant with Supporting and Porous Structures Designed with Topology Optimization-a Case Study of Canine. Rapid Prototyp J, 25:417–26. https://doi.org/10.1108/rpj-11-2017-0231
9. Pinheiro M, Alves JL, 2015, The Feasibility of a Custom-Made Endoprosthesis in Mandibular Reconstruction: Implant Design and Finite Element Analysis. J CraniomaxillofacSurg, 43:2116–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2015.10.004
10. Moiduddin K, Hammad Mian S, Alkhalefah H, et al., 2019, Digital Design, Analysis and 3D Printing of Prosthesis Scaffolds for Mandibular Reconstruction. Metals, 9:569. https://doi.org/10.3390/met9050569
11. Li CH, Wu CH, Lin CL, 2020, Design of a Patient-Specific Mandible Reconstruction Implant with Dental Prosthesis for Metal 3D Printing Using Integrated Weighted Topology Optimization and Finite Element Analysis. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater, 105:103700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2020.103700
12. Kumar BP, Venkatesh V, Kumar KA, et al., 2016, Mandibular Reconstruction: Overview. J Maxillofac Oral Surg, 15:425–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-015-0766-5
13. Hara D, 2016, Bone Bonding Strength of Diamond-Structured Porous Titanium-Alloy Implants Manufactured Using the Electron Beam Melting Technique. Mater Sci Eng C, 59:1047–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2015.11.025
14. Taniguchi N, 2016, Effect of Pore Size on Bone Ingrowth into Porous Titanium Implants Fabricated by Additive Manufacturing: An In Vivo Experiment. Mater Sci Eng C, 59:690–701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2015.10.069
15. Premarket Notification, 2018, No. K173039, 510(K) Premarket Notification, FDA, U.S., p1–11.
16. Beer FP, Johnston ER Jr., DeWolf JT, et al., 2017, Mechanics of Materials. 7th ed., Ch. 4. New York, United States: McGraw-Hill.
17. Lin CL, Wang JC, Chang WJ, 2008, Biomechanical Interactions in Tooth-Implant‐Supported Fixed Partial Dentures with Variations in the Number of Splinted Teeth and Connector Type: A Finite Element Analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res, 19:107–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01363.x
18. Narra N, Valášek J, Hannula M, et al., 2014, Finite Element Analysis of Customized Reconstruction Plates for Mandibular Continuity Defect Therapy. J Biomech, 47:264–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2013.11.016
19. Warreth A, 2015, Fundamentals of Occlusion and Restorative Dentistry. Part I: Basic Principles. J Ir Dent Assoc, 61:201–8.
20. Al Qassar SS, Mavragani M, Psarras V, et al., 2916, The Anterior Component of Occlusal Force Revisited: Direct Measurement and Theoretical Considerations. Eur J Orthod, 38:190–6. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjv028
21. Schupp W, Arzdorf M, Linke B, et al., 2007, Biomechanical Testing of Different Osteosynthesis Systems for Segmental Resection of the Mandible. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 65:924–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2006.06.306
22. Lee CT, Huang YW, Zhu L, et al., 2017, Prevalence of Peri-Implantitis and Peri-Implant Mucositis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Dent, 62:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2017.04.011
23. Long M, Rack HJ, 1998, Titanium Alloys in Total Joint Replacement-A Materials Science Perspective. Biomaterials, 19:1621–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0142-9612(97)00146-4
24. Standard ASTM, 2017, F382-17 Standard Specification and Test Method for Metallic Bone Plates, ASTM Int, 13:1–40.