Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 23, 2025
Proximal Cadaveric Femur Preparation for Fracture Strength Testing and Quantitative CT-based Finite Element Analysis
Published on: March 11, 2017
Comparison of the biomechanical behavior between commercial and 3D-printed patient-specific Ti6Al4V L-Shaped titanium
Wael Telha1, Haozhe Chen1, Mohammed Qasem Al-Watary2
1State Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases & National Center for Stomatology & National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases & Department of Orthognathic and TMJ Surgery, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, West China Hospital of Stomatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, Sichuan, China.
Objective:
To evaluate and compare the biomechanical behavior of three-dimensionally (3D) printed patient-specific Ti6Al4V with commercially made titanium mini plates following Lefort-I osteotomy using finite element analysis.
Methods:
Le Fort I osteotomy was virtually simulated with a 5 mm maxillary advancement and mediolateral rotation in the coronal plane, resulting in a 3 mm gap on the left side's posterior. Two fixation methods were modeled using software to compare 3D-printed Ti6Al4V and commercial titanium mini plates, both featuring a 4-hole l-shape with thicknesses of 0.5 mm and 0.7 mm at the strategic piriform rim and zygomaticomaxillary buttress locations. Using ANSYS R19.2, finite element models were developed to assess the fixation plates and maxilla's stress, strain, and displacement responses under occlusal forces of 125, 250, and 500 N/mm².
Results:
This comparative analysis revealed slight variation in stress, strain, and displacement between the two models under varying loading conditions. Stress analysis indicated maximum stress concentrations at the vertical change in the left posterior area between maxillary segments, with the Ti6Al4V model exhibiting slightly higher stress values (187 MPa, 375 MPa, and 750 MPa) compared to the commercial titanium model (175 MPa, 351 MPa, and 702 MPa). Strain analysis showed that the commercial titanium model recorded higher strain values at the bending area of the l-shaped miniplate. Moreover, displacement analysis revealed a maximum of 3 mm in the left posterior maxilla, with the Ti6Al4V model demonstrating slightly lower displacement values under equivalent forces.
Conclusion:
The maximum stress, strain, and segment displacement of both fixation models were predominantly concentrated in the area of the gap between the maxillary segments. Notably, both fixation models exhibited remarkably close values, which can be attributed to the similar design of the fixation plates.
