Abstract
Background: Magnesium has been used as degradable fixation material for osteosynthesis, but it seems that mechanical strength is still a current issue in these fixations. The aim of this study was to evaluate the axial pull-out force of compression headless screws made of magnesium alloy during their resorption. Methods: The tests included screws made for osteosynthesis of the mandible head: 2.2 mm diameter magnesium alloy MgYREZr (42 screws) and 2.5 mm diameter polylactic-co-glycolic acid (PLGA) (42 pieces, control). The screws were resorbed in Sørensen’s buffer for 2, 4, 8, 12, and 16 weeks, and force was measured as the screw was pulled out from the polyurethane block. Results: The force needed to pull the screw out was significantly higher for MgYREZr screws than for PLGA ones (p < 0.01). Within eight weeks, the pull-out force for MgYREZr significantly decreased to one third of its initial value (p < 0.01). The dynamics of this decrease were greater than those of the pull-out force for PLGA screws (p < 0.05). After these eight weeks, the values for metal and polymer screws equalized. It seems that the described reduction of force requires taking into account when using magnesium screws. This will provide more stable resorbable metallic osteosynthesis.
Highlights
The basic treatment method for dislocated fractures is osteosynthesis with metal alloy materials [1,2,3,4,5,6]
The tests included 84 screws of 14 mm length made for osteosynthesis of the mandible head by ChM: 2.2 mm diameter magnesium alloy MgYREZr, i.e., WE43 MEO 42 screws and 2.5 mm diameter poly(lactic-coglycolic) acid in a molar ratio of 85:15 (42 pieces)
Polylactic-coglycolic acid (PLGA), which is considered a good alternative to titanium in osteosynthesis, was chosen as the control [24,25,26,27,28,29,30]
Summary
The basic treatment method for dislocated fractures is osteosynthesis with metal alloy materials [1,2,3,4,5,6]. If the alloy comes into contact with the oral cavity, its relatively rapid surface degradation [13] causes undesirable biological reactions of surrounding soft and hard tissues, loss of osseointegration weakening the maintenance of the implant in the bone, chemical reactions, functional stresses, and bacterial attack [14]. For this reason, and because of the mechanical irritation of surrounding tissues during movement in the joints [15], a planned removal of the entire fixation material 2–3 months after implantation is postulated [15,16].
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
