Skip to main content
JDRS · Open access journal
Joint Diseases and
Related Surgery
Online manuscript submissionSubmit a manuscript e-ISSN 2687-4792

Original Article · Open access

The influence of design factors on the mechanical properties of biodegradable composite plates: A finite element analysis

PDF Cite this article

Mustafa Buğra Ayaz

Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Metin Sabancı Baltalimanı Bone Diseases Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul, Türkiye

ORCID: 0000-0002-1428-7570

Ali Çağrı Tekin

Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Prof. Dr. Cemil Taşcıoğlu City Hospital, İstanbul, Türkiye

ORCID: 0000-0002-4308-8167

Süreyya Ergün Bozdağ

İstanbul Technical University, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Laboratory of Biomechanics and Strength of Materials, İstanbul, Türkiye

ORCID: 0000-0001-7412-1129

Serhat Gürbüz

Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Metin Sabancı Baltalimanı Bone Diseases Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul, Türkiye

ORCID: 0000-0002-6120-3325

Mehmet Kürşad Bayraktar

Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Prof. Dr. Cemil Taşcıoğlu City Hospital, İstanbul, Türkiye

ORCID: 0000-0003-3860-7847

Esra Akdaş Tekin

Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Prof. Dr. Cemil Taşcıoğlu City Hospital, İstanbul, Türkiye

ORCID: 0000-0001-8538-2893

Abstract

Objectives: This study aims to investigate the influence of implant design factors on mechanical behavior and to identify lowerprofile biocomposite plate configurations with mechanical responses approaching those of a titanium reference construct under selected loading conditions.

Materials and methods: In this computational finite element study, three-dimensional implant models were developed, and material properties of polyamide-6/nano-hydroxyapatite and titanium alloy (Ti6Al4V) were assigned. Seven composite plate types were modeled: flat (thicknesses 8, 9, and 10 mm), bellied, curved, enhanced, and hybrid plate. All constructs were mounted on a cylindrical synthetic femoral diaphyseal surrogate and fixed with six screws. Finite element analysis was conducted using ANSYS Mechanical 2022 R2 under axial compression (800 N), distraction (300 N), and torsion (10 Nm). Mechanical responses including maximum deformation, von Mises stress, and strain distribution in bone, plate, and screws were evaluated. Results were evaluated descriptively and comparatively across implant configurations and loading conditions.

Results: The titanium construct generally demonstrated the lowest deformation under torsional loading and the lowest plate strain response, whereas selected composite geometries approached or exceeded titanium-like deformation performance under specific loading modes. The hybrid plate showed the lowest deformation under compression, while the thick flat plate provided the lowest deformation among composites under distraction and torsion. The bellied design showed lower torsion-induced deformation and lower plate stress than most other lower-profile composite configurations. The enhanced plate exhibited the lowest plate strain among the composite models under compression and distraction but may pose challenges for soft tissue coverage due to its complex geometry.

Conclusion: Optimizing plate geometry can substantially modify the mechanical behavior of biodegradable composite constructs. Hybrid and enhanced designs demonstrated load-mode specific mechanical responses that may inform future biodegradable plate optimization, particularly with further material refinement and experimental validation.

Declarations

Author Contributions

M.B.A.: Was responsible for the conception and design of the study and performed the data analysis; A.C.T.: Critically evaluated the manuscript and contributed to its intellectual content; S.E.B.: Participated in the study design, data analysis, and interpretation of the results; S.G.: Contributed to data collection; M.K.B.: Assisted in drafting the initial manuscript; E.A.T.: Performed the final review and made editorial revisions to the manuscript. All authors reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript for submission.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declared no conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Financial Disclosure

The authors received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.

Data Sharing Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

AI Disclosure

The authors declare that artificial intelligence (AI) tools were not used, or were used solely for language editing, and had no role in data analysis, interpretation, or the formulation of conclusions. All scientific content, data interpretation, and conclusions are the sole responsibility of the authors. The authors further confirm that AI tools were not used to generate, fabricate, or ‘hallucinate’ references, and that all references have been carefully verified for accuracy.

References

  1. Kandemir U, Augat P, Konowalczyk S, Wipf F, von Oldenburg G, Schmidt U. Implant material, type of fixation at the shaft, and position of plate modify biomechanics of distal femur plate osteosynthesis. J Orthop Trauma 2017;31:e241-6. DOI: 10.1097/BOT.0000000000000860.
  2. Mehboob H, Chang SH. Optimal design of a functionally graded biodegradable composite bone plate by using the Taguchi method and finite element analysis. Compos Struct 2015;119:166-73. DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2014.08.029.
  3. Mehboob A, Mehboob H, Chang SH, Tarlochan F. Effect of composite intramedullary nails (IM) on healing of long bone fractures by means of reamed and unreamed methods. Compos Struct 2017;167:76-87. DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2017.01.076.
  4. Wee H, Staub J, Koroneos Z, Kunselman A, Reid JS, Lewis GS. Mechanics of dynamic compression plate application in fracture fixation. Clin Biomech (Bristol) 2024;113:106209. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2024.106209.
  5. Claes L. Biomechanical principles and mechanobiologic aspects of flexible and locked plating. J Orthop Trauma 2011;25:S4-7. DOI: 10.1097/BOT.0b013e318207093e.
  6. Chmielewska A, Dean D. The role of stiffness-matching in avoiding stress shielding-induced bone loss and stress concentration-induced skeletal reconstruction device failure. Acta Biomater 2024;173:51-65. DOI: 10.1016/j.actbio.2023.11.011.
  7. Bradley GW, McKenna GB, Dunn HK, Daniels AU, Statton WO. Effects of flexural rigidity of plates on bone healing. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1979;61:866-72.
  8. Ramakrishna S, Mayer J, Wintermantel E, Leong KW. Biomedical applications of polymer-composite materials: a review. Compos Sci Technol 2001;61:1189-224. DOI: 10.1016/S0266-3538(00)00241-4.
  9. Lopez J, Siegel N, Reategui A, Faateh M, Manson PN, Redett RJ. Absorbable fixation devices for pediatric craniomaxillofacial trauma: A systematic review of the literature. Plast Reconstr Surg 2019;144:685-92. DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000005932.
  10. Xiong Y, Ren C, Zhang B, Yang H, Lang Y, Min L, et al. Analyzing the behavior of a porous nano-hydroxyapatite/ polyamide 66 (n-HA/PA66) composite for healing of bone defects. Int J Nanomedicine 2014;9:485-94. DOI: 10.2147/IJN.S52990.
  11. Chandra G, Pandey A, Pandey S. Design of a biodegradable plate for femoral shaft fracture fixation. Med Eng Phys 2020;81:86-96. DOI: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2020.05.010.
  12. ASTM F136-12. Standard Specification for Wrought Titanium-6Aluminum-4Vanadium ELI (Extra Low Interstitial) Alloy for Surgical Implant Applications (UNS R56401). 2012. DOI: 10.1520/F0136-12.
  13. Li K, Tjong SC. Mechanical, thermal and bioactive behaviors of polyamide 6/hydroxyapatite nanocomposites. J Nanosci Nanotechnol 2011;11:10644-8. DOI: 10.1166/jnn.2011.3955.
  14. Zdero R, Brzozowski P, Schemitsch EH. Biomechanical properties of artificial bones made by Sawbones: A review. Med Eng Phys 2023;118:104017. DOI: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2023.104017.
  15. ASTM International. ASTM F382-17. Standard Specification and Test Method for Metallic Bone Plates. West Conshohocken (PA): ASTM International; 2017. DOI: 10.1520/F0382-17.
  16. Uhthoff HK, Poitras P, Backman DS. Internal plate fixation of fractures: Short history and recent developments. J Orthop Sci 2006;11:118-26. DOI: 10.1007/s00776-005-0984-7.
  17. ASTM International. ASTM F543-13E01. Standard Specification and Test Methods for Metallic Medical Bone Screws. West Conshohocken (PA): ASTM International; 2013. DOI: 10.1520/F0543-13E01.
  18. Oefner C, Herrmann S, Kebbach M, Lange HE, Kluess D, Woiczinski M. Reporting checklist for verification and validation of finite element analysis in orthopedic and trauma biomechanics. Med Eng Phys 2021;92:25-32. DOI: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2021.03.011.
  19. Moazen M, Mak JH, Jones AC, Jin Z, Wilcox RK, Tsiridis E. Evaluation of a new approach for modelling the screwbone interface in a locking plate fixation: A corroboration study. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 2013;227:746-56. DOI: 10.1177/0954411913483259.
  20. Biemond JE, Aquarius R, Verdonschot N, Buma P. Frictional and bone ingrowth properties of engineered surface topographies produced by electron beam technology. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2011;131:711-8. DOI: 10.1007/s00402-010-1218-9.
  21. Brinkman JM, Hurschler C, Agneskirchner J, Lobenhoffer P, Castelein RM, van Heerwaarden RJ. Biomechanical testing of distal femur osteotomy plate fixation techniques: The role of simulated physiological loading. J Exp Orthop 2014;1:1. DOI: 10.1186/s40634-014-0001-1.
  22. Osterhoff G, Morgan EF, Shefelbine SJ, Karim L, McNamara LM, Augat P. Bone mechanical properties and changes with osteoporosis. Injury 2016;47:S11-20. DOI: 10.1016/S0020-1383(16)47003-8.
  23. Montgomery BK, Gamble JG, Kha ST, Hecht GG, Vorhies JS, Lucas JF. Indications for and risks associated with implant removal after pediatric trauma. J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev 2022;6:e22.00050. DOI: 10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-22-00050.
  24. May C, Yen YM, Nasreddine AY, Hedequist D, Hresko MT, Heyworth BE. Complications of plate fixation of femoral shaft fractures in children and adolescents. J Child Orthop 2013;7:235-43. DOI: 10.1007/s11832-013-0496-5.
  25. Gamble JG, Ziino C, Imrie MN, Young JL. Transmetaphyseal screws placed in children: An argument for monitoring and potentially removing the implants. J Pediatr Orthop 2019;39:e28-31. DOI: 10.1097/BPO.0000000000001280.
  26. Vijayavenkataraman S, Gopinath A, Lu WF. A new design of 3D-printed orthopedic bone plates with auxetic structures to mitigate stress shielding and improve intra-operative bending. Bio-des Manuf 2020;3:98-108. DOI: 10.1007/s42242-020-00066-8.
  27. Fujihara K, Huang ZM, Ramakrishna S, Satknanantham K, Hamada H. Feasibility of knitted carbon/PEEK composites for orthopedic bone plates. Biomaterials 2004;25:3877-85. DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2003.10.050.
  28. Li X, Chu C, Zhou L, Bai J, Guo C, Xue F, et al. Fully degradable PLA-based composite reinforced with 2D-braided Mg wires for orthopedic implants. Compos Sci Technol 2017;142:180-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.compscitech.2017.02.013.
  29. Arumugam S, Kandasamy J, Md Shah AU, Hameed Sultan MT, Safri SNA, Abdul Majid MS, et al. Investigations on the mechanical properties of glass fiber/sisal fiber/chitosan reinforced hybrid polymer sandwich composite scaffolds for bone fracture fixation applications. Polymers (Basel) 2020;12:1501. DOI: 10.3390/polym12071501.
  30. Samiezadeh S, Tavakkoli Avval P, Fawaz Z, Bougherara H. On optimization of a composite bone plate using the selective stress shielding approach. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2015;42:138-53. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2014.11.015.