Basit öğe kaydını göster

dc.contributor.authorAlkan, Alper
dc.contributor.authorCelebi, Nukhet
dc.contributor.authorOzden, Bora
dc.contributor.authorBas, Burcn
dc.contributor.authorInal, Samet
dc.date.accessioned2020-06-21T15:18:23Z
dc.date.available2020-06-21T15:18:23Z
dc.date.issued2007
dc.identifier.issn1079-2104
dc.identifier.issn1528-395X
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2007.03.014
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12712/19668
dc.descriptionBAS, BURCU/0000-0003-0593-3400; Kutuk, Nukhet/0000-0001-6563-1899en_US
dc.descriptionWOS: 000251677300009en_US
dc.descriptionPubMed: 17651992en_US
dc.description.abstractObjective. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the biomechanical behaviors of different miniplate fixation techniques for treatment of fractures of the mandibular angle. Study design. Twenty sheep hemimandibles were used to evaluate 4 different plating techniques. The groups were fixated with Champy technique, biplanar plate placement, monoplanar plate placement, and 3-dimensional (3D) curved angle strut plate. A custom-made 3-point biomechanical test model was used for the samples. Each group was tested with compression forces by an Instron Lloyd LRX machine. The biomechanical behavior of the groups for the forces (N) that caused displacement of 1.75 mm were compared using the Instron software program and displacement graphics. Results. The variance analyses showed that biplanar plate placement had more favorable biomechanical behavior than Champy technique and monoplanar plate placement (P < .05). In addition, the 3D curved angle strut plate technique had more favorable biomechanical behavior than the Champy technique (P < .05) but was not significantly different from biplanar or monoplanar plate placement techniques (P > .05). Conclusion. The study demonstrated that 3D strut plates or dual miniplate techniques had greater resistance to compression loads than the Champy technique. In addition, biplanar plate orientation may provide a more favorable biomechanical behavior than monoplanar plate placement.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherMosby-Elsevieren_US
dc.relation.isversionof10.1016/j.tripleo.2007.03.014en_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.titleBiomechanical comparison of different plating techniques in repair of mandibular angle fracturesen_US
dc.typearticleen_US
dc.contributor.departmentOMÜen_US
dc.identifier.volume104en_US
dc.identifier.issue6en_US
dc.identifier.startpage752en_US
dc.identifier.endpage756en_US
dc.relation.journalOral Surgery Oral Medicine Oral Pathology Oral Radiology and Endodontologyen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US


Bu öğenin dosyaları:

DosyalarBoyutBiçimGöster

Bu öğe ile ilişkili dosya yok.

Bu öğe aşağıdaki koleksiyon(lar)da görünmektedir.

Basit öğe kaydını göster