An in vitro evaluation of distractors used for osteogenesis

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this investigation was to evaluate and compare the mechanical behaviors of distractors used for osteogenesis under various conditions by means of common engineering standards. STUDY DESIGN: Five groups of 5 synthetic mandibles were used in this study (N = 25). The first portion of the investigation compared mandibles without intervention (group A [controls]; n = 5), mandibles that had uniform osteotomies stabilized with an external distractor (group B; n = 5), and mandibles that had simulated sagittal osteotomies rigidly fixated with 3 positional screws (group C; n = 5). The second portion of the investigation compared uniform osteotomies (group B; n = 5) and uniform corticotomies (group D; n = 5) that were stabilized with the same external distractor. The last portion of the investigation compared osteotomies stabilized with an external distractor (group B; n = 5) and osteotomies stabilized with an internal distractor (group E; n = 5). Each construct was subjected to vertical loads on a mechanical testing unit. Common engineering standards, including yield load, yield displacement, maximum load, displacement at maximum load, and stiffness, were measured, recorded, and compared by means of a 1-way analysis of variance and a Scheffé multiple comparison test or independent-samples t test. The means between groups were considered significant for P < .05. A polynomial best-fit curve was calculated for the load/displacement data for each group. RESULTS: During the first portion of the investigation, no significant differences were noted between the control, rigidly fixated sagittal osteotomy, and external distractor with osteotomy groups for displacement at maximum load (P = .19). Significant differences were noted between groups for yield displacement (P = .009), yield load (P < .001), maximum load (P < .001), and stiffness (P < .007). Failures occurred in the control and rigidly fixated groups with fractures of the synthetic mandibles. Failures occurred in the external distractor group with permanent deformation or torsion of the pins. During the second portion of the experiment, no statistically significant differences were noted between the corticotomy and osteotomy groups in stiffness (P = .363), maximum load (P = .207), or yield displacement (P = .940). Statistically significant differences were noted between groups for yield load (P = .036) and displacement at maximum load (P = .010). Failures occurred in both groups with permanent deformation or torsion of the pins. During the last portion of the investigation, statistically significant differences were noted between the external distractor and internal distractor groups in yield load (P < .001), yield displacement (P < .001), maximum load (P = .001), and displacement at maximum load (P = .01); no significant differences were noted in stiffness (P = .71). Failures occurred in the external distractor group with permanent deformation or torsion of the pins. Failures occurred in the internal distractor group with fracture of the model or displacement beyond 30.0 mm. CONCLUSIONS: Different patterns of mechanical behavior were found between the control and rigidly fixated sagittal osteotomy groups and the external distractor group, between the corticotomy and osteotomy groups, and between the internal and external distractor groups.