Abstract
Comparative Biomechanical Evaluation of Acrylic- and Epoxy-Pin External Skeletal Fixation Systems with Two- and Three-Point Fixation per Segment under Compressive Loading
Highlights
For clinical acceptance, an external skeletal fixator (ESF) must be sufficiently rigid, well tolerated, applied and inexpensive (Aithal et al, 2007 and 2010a)
Two–Point Fixation Constructs The mean±SE values of stress, strain, stiffness and modulus of elasticity for fixator constructs of group A are given in table 2
No significant (P>0.05) difference was recorded in stress and strain values of ESF constructs having 8 or 4 pins
Summary
An external skeletal fixator (ESF) must be sufficiently rigid, well tolerated, applied and inexpensive (Aithal et al, 2007 and 2010a). Roe and Keo (1997) suggested that epoxy putty can be a suitable material for connecting pins in free–form external skeletal fixators. Such free–form fixators were used in the repair of fractures of birds and small animals (Bennet and Kuzma; 1992, Stampley and Lawrence, 1993; Roe and Keo, 1997; Kumar et al, 2012) and in small ruminants, calves and foals (Aithal et al, 2010b)
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.
