Abstract
Aims
To draw a comparison of the pullout strengths of buttress thread, barb thread, and reverse buttress thread bone screws.
Methods
Buttress thread, barb thread, and reverse buttress thread bone screws were inserted into synthetic cancellous bone blocks. Five screw-block constructs per group were tested to failure in an axial pullout test. The pullout strengths were calculated and compared. A finite element analysis (FEA) was performed to explore the underlying failure mechanisms. FEA models of the three different screw-bone constructs were developed. A pullout force of 250 N was applied to the screw head with a fixed bone model. The compressive and tensile strain contours of the midsagittal plane of the three bone models were plotted and compared.
Results
The barb thread demonstrated the lowest pullout strength (mean 176.16 N (SD 3.10)) among the three thread types. It formed a considerably larger region with high tensile strains and a slightly smaller region with high compressive strains within the surrounding bone structure. The reverse buttress thread demonstrated the highest pullout strength (mean 254.69 N (SD 4.15)) among the three types of thread. It formed a considerably larger region with high compressive strains and a slightly smaller region with high tensile strains within the surrounding bone structure.
Conclusion
Bone screws with a reverse buttress thread design will significantly increase the pullout strength.
Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2021;10(2):105–112.
Article focus
-
Can barb thread design improve the pullout strength of bone screws when compared with buttress thread and reverse buttress thread? What is the underlying mechanism?
Key messages
-
Reverse buttress thread showed the best pullout strength.
-
Proximal flank angle affects the pullout strength of bone screws by altering the compressive and tensile strain distribution at the surrounding bone.
Strengths and limitations
-
We incorporated biomechanical test and finite element analysis (FEA) to explore the pullout strengths of bone screws with buttress thread, barb thread, and reverse buttress thread.
-
Biomechanical test in the cadaveric bone sample is not included in this study.
Introduction
Lag screw, which is designed to achieve anatomical reduction and rigid fixation by compressing the fracture fragments, remains a standard choice for some simple fractures.1 When applying lag screws to fix fractures, the ability of the lag screw to exert compression is extremely important for establishing and maintaining the stability of bone-implant constructs.2 However, it may be difficult to establish sufficient compression due to the altered density and properties of the cancellous bone in the metaphyseal regions in cases involving the presence of osteoporosis.3
The screw’s ability to exert compression is determined by the anchorage strength of the screw in the bone tissue, which can be evaluated by applying the axial pullout test.4 There are two typical strategies employed to improve the pullout strength of bone screws. The first strategy is augmentation of the surrounding bone structure by administering bone cement, thus increasing the stiffness of the trabecular structure surrounding the screw threads.5 Many biomechanical studies have demonstrated the mechanical superiority of augmentation of the local screw insertion point using bone cement.6,7 The second strategy involves optimizing the screw thread parameters, thus increasing the contact area between the screw and the surrounding bone.8,9 The effect of the outer diameter, inner diameter, pitch, thread width, and root radius on the pullout strength of the bone screw has been well studied and the results have proved consistent.10-14 However, the influence of the proximal flank angle, which is defined in this study as the angle between the proximal core axis and the proximal thread flank, on the pullout strength of bone screws has not yet been explored to the authors’ knowledge.
Based on the various proximal flank angles, there are three typical thread types encountered in bone screws. These include: the buttress thread, possessing a proximal flank angle of 90°; the barb thread design, possessing a proximal flank angle smaller than 90°; and the V-shape thread (or reverse buttress thread), possessing a proximal flank angle larger than 90°. Since Robert Danis proposed to replace the industrial V-shape thread with buttress thread, buttress thread became the standard thread profile for bone screws.15 Currently, most medical device companies manufacture bone screws with the buttress thread, while some still use the V-shape thread design. The hypothesis of this study is that the barb thread possesses superior axial pullout strength to the buttress thread, while the reverse buttress thread possesses inferior axial pullout strength to the buttress thread. To verify this hypothesis, the axial pullout strengths of barb thread screws and reverse buttress thread screws were investigated and compared with buttress thread screws. Finite element analysis (FEA), which permits detailed evaluation of the strain and stress distribution of the bone-implant system,16,17 was performed for each thread type to further explore the underlying stabilization mechanisms of screws with varying thread designs in terms of resisting axial pullout forces to explain the experimental findings.
Methods
Biomechanical pullout test
Buttress thread, barb thread, and reverse buttress thread bone screws were designed and manufactured from 316 low carbon vacuum melt (LVM) stainless steel. The screws were all self-tapping with an identical thread pitch of 2.0 mm, major and minor diameter of 4.5 mm and 3.2 mm, respectively, screw length of 40 mm, and identical cutting flute design. The proximal flank angles were 90°, 45°, and 135° for buttress thread, barb thread, and reverse buttress thread screws, respectively. The angles of 45° and 135° were chosen as representatives for threads with proximal flank angle smaller and larger than 90°. All thread types possessed the same thread base width and thread depth of 0.65 mm. Thus, the areas of the individual thread profiles of the various thread designs used in this study were identical as shown in Figures 1a and 1c.
Fig. 1
Types of screws analyzed in this study included the a) buttress thread screw, b) barb thread screw, and c) reverse buttress thread screw.
Solid rigid polyurethane foam blocks possessing a density of 0.16 g/cm3 (Sawbones 10 PCF; Pacific Research Laboratories, Vashon, Washington, USA) were fixed with adhesive to ASTM F1839-08 to mimic human cancellous bone.18 This particular foam block was chosen because it possessed a density within the range encountered in osteoporotic cancellous bone and has been validated using screw pullout tests in previous studies.19,20
For the axial pullout test as shown in Figure 2a, the polyurethane foam blocks were cut into cubes measuring 40 mm × 40 mm × 40 mm. A pilot hole was made all the way through the centre of each polyurethane foam cube with a 3.2 mm drill bit by a drill press. Three test groups were established, namely the buttress thread group, the barb thread group, and the reverse buttress thread group. Five screws were used per test group and were screwed 25 mm deep into the pre-drilled pilot holes in the polyurethane foam cubes. Subsequently, each screw-block construct was mounted on the load cell (1,000 N) of a MTS 858 Mini Bionix (MTS Systems Corporation, Eden Prairie, Minnesota, USA) hydraulic loading machine along with a custom-made jig to ensure controlled axial tension on the screw. The screws were forcibly extracted from the blocks until they had been shifted by 10 mm under a controlled displacement rate of 5 mm/minute, in accordance with the published standards.21
Fig. 2
The experiment conducted in this study included tests performed using a) a biomechanical pullout test setup and b) a finite element model of the pullout test.
During the pullout test, the displacement was measured at the screw head. The displacement and the force required to achieve corresponding displacement were collected at a sampling rate of 10 Hz as the screws were pulled out axially from the foam block. The force-displacement curve was plotted and the stiffness, yield force, and ultimate force were calculated based on these data. Stiffness was calculated as the slope of a best-fit line for the linear region of the force-displacement curve. The linear region was defined as the curve at load-interval between 10 N and 110 N. Yield force was determined using a 0.015 mm offset parallel to the stiffness.22 Stiffness, yield force, and ultimate force were compared between groups using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) technique. Values of p < 0.05 were considered significant for all tests of the hypothesis.
Finite element analysis
A 3D cube model with dimensions of 20 mm × 20 mm × 20 mm was created to represent the cancellous bone. 3D models of buttress thread, barb thread, and reverse buttress thread compression bone screws as described previously in the paper were created.
These geometries were used to create 3D finite element models in the ABAQUS software suite (6.13/CAE; Simulia, Providence, Rhode Island, USA). Each screw model was placed at the centre of the cube model to mimic the screw embedded within the cancellous bone as shown in Figure 2b. The material properties of the bone used in this study were defined to be linear elastic, homogeneous, and isotropic, and to represent osteoporotic cancellous bone.23 The screws were defined to be constructed of stainless steel and were modelled as a homogeneous isotropic material.24 These material properties for bone and screw are summarized in Table I. The screw-bone contact interfaces were modelled as sliding interactions using a Coulomb friction coefficient of 0.3.25 According to the maximum pullout force of the three different bone screws found in the pullout test, a constant, concentrated force of 250 N was applied to each screw head with the surrounding four surfaces of the bone model fixed in place. Quasi-static (implicit) analysis was conducted using geometrical nonlinearity (ABAQUS/Standard).
Table I.
Material properties for bone and screw used in this study.
| Material | Young’s modulus, MPa | Poisson’s ratio |
|---|---|---|
| Bone | 260 | 0.29 |
| Screw | 205,000 | 0.3 |
Because strain distribution in the bone was the main concern in this study, quadratic tetrahedral elements were used to model the bone, while linear tetrahedral elements were used to model the screws. The approximate number of elements used in the bone and screw of the buttress thread group, the barb thread group, and the reverse buttress thread group were 753,972 and 280,621, 786,978 and 281,075, and 734,306 and 281,190, respectively. All bone models incorporated refinement for the bone material in close proximity to, and surrounding, the screw. The element edge length around the screw holes was 0.02 mm. A mesh convergence study was conducted and appropriate mesh resolutions for different parts of the model were determined based on their influence on the highest maximum principal strain exerted on the bone. Doubling the number of elements in the bone changed the highest maximum principal strain exerted on the bone by 0.96%, 1.03%, and 0.93% for the buttress thread, barb thread, and reverse buttress thread insertion models, respectively. As a consequence of this improved resolution, this particular FEA model was used in the analysis.
The maximum and minimum principal strain contours of the midsagittal plane of the three bone models were plotted to compare the tensile strain and compressive strain distribution, respectively. The volumes of bone exceeding a maximum principal strain of 0.6% and minimum principal strain of 0.8% were calculated to compare the size of relatively high tensile strain and compressive strain regions between the three bone models. A maximum principal strain of 0.6% is equivalent to the yield tensile strain of osteoporotic cancellous bone.23 The selected bone experienced a maximum principal strain in excess of 0.6%, and thus represented bones damaged by the high tensile strain. A minimum principal strain of 0.8% is equivalent to the yield compressive strain of osteoporotic cancellous bone.23 The selected bone experienced a minimum principal strain in excess of 0.8%, and thus represented bones damaged by high compressive strain.
Results
Biomechanical pullout test
The force-displacement curves for the axial pullout tests are shown in Figure 3a. The curves showed that the reverse buttress thread performed more effectively than the buttress thread, while the barb thread performed less effectively than the buttress thread while under axial pullout. The three important parameters of the curve, namely stiffness, yield force, and ultimate force, are shown in Figures 3b and 3d. The mean stiffness of the buttress thread, barb thread, and reverse buttress thread was 373.62 N/mm (SD 50.89), 512.04 N/mm (SD 90.28), and 516.95 N/mm (SD 63.37), respectively (Figure 3b). The mean yield force of the buttress thread, barb thread, and reverse buttress thread was 166.99 N (SD 9.63), 144.75 N (SD 1.96), and 224.39 N (SD 3.80), respectively. The mean ultimate force of the buttress thread, barb thread, and reverse buttress thread was 195.16 N (SD 1.41), 176.16 N (SD 3.10), and 254.69 N (SD 4.15), respectively (Figures 3c and 3d).
Fig. 3
The graphs pictured above show a comparison between the axial pullout strength of buttress thread, barb thread, and reverse buttress thread screws in terms of: a) force versus displacement; b) stiffness; c) yield force; and d) ultimate force. Mean values and SDs of the measured values are presented above (n = 5). *p < 0.05, †p < 0.01; one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). CI, confidence interval.
Finite element analysis
The maximum principal strain contours of the midsagittal plane of the three bone models are shown in Figures 4a and 4c to reveal the tensile strain distribution. The red-coloured areas indicate regions of relatively high tensile strain concentrations. The tensile strain concentrations were clear in the buttress thread group and the barb thread group and were located under the distal thread flank in both groups. However, for the reverse buttress thread group, no evident tensile strain concentration was noted.
Fig. 4
These colour plots show the maximum principal strain contours of the midsagittal plane of the bone samples associated with a) the buttress thread screw, b) the barb thread screw, and c) the reverse buttress thread screw.
The minimum principal strain contours of the midsagittal plane of the three bone models are shown in Figures 5a and 5c to reveal the compressive strain distribution. The blue-coloured areas indicate areas of relatively high compressive strain concentration. High compressive strain concentrations were found on the proximal thread flank of the buttress thread and the reverse buttress thread groups. This effect was more pronounced in the reverse buttress thread group. However, no evident compressive strain concentration was noted for the barb thread group.
Fig. 5
These colour plots show the minimum principal strain contours of the midsagittal plane of the bone samples associated with a) the buttress thread screw, b) the barb thread screw, and c) the reverse buttress thread screw.
The volume of bone containing a maximum principal strain greater than 0.6% was 33.66 mm3, 37.71 mm3, and 7.0 mm3 for the buttress thread group, barb thread group, and reverse buttress thread group, respectively (Figure 6a). The volume of bone containing a minimum principal strain greater than 0.8% was 5.7 mm3, 1.5 mm3, and 18.99 mm3 for the buttress thread group, barb thread group, and reverse buttress thread group, respectively (Figure 6b).
Fig. 6
These graphs show: a) the volume of bone of the three bone models (buttress thread screw, barb thread screw, and reverse buttress thread screw) in which the tensile strain exceeded 0.6%; and b) the compressive strain exceeded 0.8%.
Discussion
Several studies have been performed to investigate the effect of thread profiles on the pullout strength of bone screws. Geng et al26,27 found in an FEA study that a V-shaped and a broader square-shaped thread generated significantly less stress compared with a thin and narrower square thread in cancellous bone.26,27 A biomechanical pullout test performed by Kim et al28 found that a V-shaped thread showed higher pullout strength than buttress thread and square thread pedicle screws in synthetic cancellous bone.28 Several FEA studies have demonstrated that a square thread has superior pullout performance because it leads to less stress concentration compared with the V-shaped and buttress thread profiles.29,30 A FEA study and a biomechanical pullout test revealed that the reverse buttress thread had superior performance in a pullout test.31,32 However, a biomechanical pullout test showed that trapezoidal fluted mini-implants had higher pullout strength compared with the reverse buttress thread and buttress thread.33 In short, the results of the above FEA and biomechanical pullout studies are inconsistent, which is attributed to the varied testing setups and loading conditions of the different studies. Their results therefore need to be interpreted carefully.
In our study, the areas of individual thread profiles of the various thread designs were identical to ensure that the same amount of bone was removed when the screw was inserted. The results of the biomechanical pullout test performed in this study showed that the reverse buttress thread displayed superior pullout strength, whereas the barb thread demonstrated inferior pullout strength compared with the standard buttress thread in the cancellous bone models. The mean pullout strength of the reverse buttress thread was 254.69 N (SD 4.15), representing an increase of 30.5% compared with that of the standard buttress thread (mean 195.16 N (SD 1.41)). However, the mean pullout strength of the barb thread was 176.16 N (SD 3.10), representing a decrease of 9.7% compared with that of the standard buttress thread. These findings contradict our hypothesis that the barb thread design can grab bone tissue more efficiently to produce superior pullout strength, whereas the reverse buttress thread is inferior in pullout strength because it cannot grab bone tissue effectively.
3D FEAs were performed to explore the underlying mechanism involved and further explain the significant results of the biomechanical test. The use of the simpler and quicker 2D axisymmetric model is an option that has been used successfully for modelling the human lumen.34 However, bone screw does not have an axisymmetric geometry. 2D axisymmetric analysis of bone screw cannot totally simulate its real loading condition when being pulled out. The strain contours revealed that under axial pullout force, the bone surrounding the screw formed a relatively high compressive strain area on the proximal thread flank and a relatively high tensile strain area under the distal thread flank, as shown in Figures 4 and 5. The proximal flank angle of the thread could affect the size of the high compressive strain region and the high tensile strain region. Among the three thread types, the buttress thread possessed moderately high compressive strain and high tensile strain regions, as shown in Figure 6. The barb thread had the largest high tensile strain region and the smallest high compressive strain region, whereas the reverse buttress thread had the largest high compressive strain region and the smallest high tensile strain region, as shown in Figure 6. This was further demonstrated in a bone screw biomechanical study by Wang et al,35 in which the authors found more compressive damaged bone between obliquely angled screw threads than non-obliquely angled screw threads.
Bone tissue is known to possess higher compression strength than tensile strength,23,36 which means that bone is more easily damaged by tensile strain than compressive strain. Furthermore, bone damaged by compressive strain can be compressed into a much denser mass, which, in turn, will provide some protection against the screw pulling out any further.37,38 However, this protection effect does not occur in areas of bone damaged by tensile strain. Thread types that can transform the pullout force predominantly into compressive strain and limit the exposure of the surrounding bone to tensile strain can therefore lead to superior pullout strength performance. The geometrical features of the reverse buttress thread design reduce its ability to grab bone tissue effectively because of the slide out effect; however, they do allow it to form a much larger high compressive strain area on the proximal thread flank and a much smaller high tensile strain area under the distal thread flank while being exposed to pullout forces, resulting in superior pullout strength. The geometrical features of the barb thread allow it to grab bone tissue more effectively, but this improved grabbing action is not optimal for bone tissue that is vulnerable to tensile strain because the barb thread can transform more pullout force into tensile strain under the distal thread flank. However, in the case of soft tissue that can better resist tensile strain, the barbed geometrical features can fully exert their grabbing function. For this reason, barbed sutures are used widely with good results in clinical applications.39,40
The maximum principal strain criterion is proven to be a better bone fracture predictor41 and has been applied widely for predicting screw loosening.42 Therefore, principal strain was used for the comparisons in this study. This FEA study found that a substantially larger part of the bone was exposed to strain levels in excess of the yield point of the maximum principal strain around the barb thread screw. By contrast, a smaller part of the bone was exposed around the reverse buttress thread screw, as shown in Figure 6a. This indicated that the barb thread was more vulnerable to screw loosening, whereas the reverse buttress thread was stabler under the same axial pullout force, further validating the result of the biomechanical test. This result also meant that tensile strain may represent a suboptimal type of strain to apply to bone tissue when resisting axial pullout of a screw. However, the bone damaged by compressive strain demonstrated a reverse trend in the biomechanical pullout test, further indicating that compressive strain may represent the optimal type of strain to apply to bone tissue when resisting axial pullout of a bone screw.
This study has limitations. Synthetic osteoporotic bones were used as substitutes for human osteoporotic cancellous bone. Such biomechanical studies performed with polyurethane foam blocks cannot fully replicate in vivo conditions, and this should be considered when attempting to draw conclusions. However, owing to large natural variations in apparent density, trabeculae orientation, and mechanical properties of cancellous bone within and among specimens, numerous tests are required to isolate the effects of screw design when cancellous bone is used in the testing procedure. The use of synthetic cancellous bone simplified the experimental setup, thus limiting the experimental error. Further biomechanical testing in cadaveric cancellous bone needs to be performed to corroborate the findings of this study.
References
1. Helfet DL , Haas NP , Schatzker J , Matter P , Moser R , Hanson B . AO philosophy and principals of fracture management-its evolution and evaluation . J Bone Joint Surg Am . 2003 ; 85-A : 1156 – 1160 . Google Scholar
2. Ricci WM , Tornetta P , Petteys T , et al. A comparison of screw insertion torque and pullout strength . J Orthop Trauma . 2010 ; 24 ( 6 ): 374 – 378 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
3. Lampropoulou-Adamidou K , Karampinas PK , Chronopoulos E , Vlamis J , Korres DS . Currents of plate osteosynthesis in osteoporotic bone . Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol . 2014 ; 24 ( 4 ): 427 – 433 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
4. Xu D-Q , Sun P-D , Wang J , Yang H-L , Zhao W-D . A combined partially threaded cancellous lag screw for achieving maximum compressive force without compromising pullout strength . Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci . 2016 ; 20 ( 2 ): 208 – 213 . PubMed Google Scholar
5. Namdari S , Rabinovich R , Scolaro J , Baldwin K , Bhandari M , Mehta S . Absorbable and non-absorbable cement augmentation in fixation of intertrochanteric femur fractures: systematic review of the literature . Arch Orthop Trauma Surg . 2013 ; 133 ( 4 ): 487 – 494 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
6. Collinge C , Merk B , Lautenschlager EP . Mechanical evaluation of fracture fixation augmented with tricalcium phosphate bone cement in a porous osteoporotic cancellous bone model . J Orthop Trauma . 2007 ; 21 ( 2 ): 124 – 128 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
7. Gisep A , Kugler S , Wahl D , Rahn B . Mechanical characterisation of a bone defect model filled with ceramic cements . J Mater Sci Mater Med . 2004 ; 15 ( 10 ): 1065 – 1071 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
8. Vishnubhotla S , McGarry WB , Mahar AT , Gelb DE . A titanium expandable pedicle screw improves initial pullout strength as compared with standard pedicle screws . Spine J . 2011 ; 11 ( 8 ): 777 – 781 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
9. Wiendieck K , Müller H , Buchfelder M , Sommer B . Mechanical stability of a novel screw design after repeated insertion: can the double-thread screw serve as a back up? J Neurosurg Sci . 2018 ; 62 ( 3 ): 271 – 278 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
10. Chae S-W , Kang J-Y , Lee J , Han S-H , Kim S-Y . Effect of structural design on the pullout strength of suture anchors for rotator cuff repair . J Orthop Res . 2018 ; 36 ( 12 ): 3318 – 3327 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
11. Gustafson PA , Veenstra JM , Bearden CR , Jastifer JR . The effect of pitch variation and diameter variation on screw Pullout . Foot Ankle Spec . 2019 ; 12 ( 3 ): 258-263 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
12. Hou S-M , Hsu C-C , Wang J-L , Chao C-K , Lin J . Mechanical tests and finite element models for bone holding power of tibial locking screws . Clin Biomech . 2004 ; 19 ( 7 ): 738 – 745 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
13. Ryu H-S , Namgung C , Lee J-H , Lim Y-J . The influence of thread geometry on implant osseointegration under immediate loading: a literature review . J Adv Prosthodont . 2014 ; 6 : 547 – 554 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
14. Shih K-S , Hou S-M , Lin S-C . Theoretical prediction of pullout strengths for dental and orthopaedic screws with conical profile and buttress threads . Comput Methods Programs Biomed . 2017 ; 152 : 159 – 164 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
15. Roberts TT , Prummer CM , Papaliodis DN , Uhl RL , Wagner TA . History of the orthopedic screw . Orthopedics . 2013 ; 36 ( 1 ): 12 – 14 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
16. Xie S , Manda K , Pankaj P . Time-dependent behaviour of bone accentuates loosening in the fixation of fractures using bone-screw systems . Bone Joint Res . 2018 ; 7 ( 10 ): 580 – 586 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
17. Huang H , Nightingale RW , Dang ABC . Biomechanics of coupled motion in the cervical spine during simulated whiplash in patients with pre-existing cervical or lumbar spinal fusion . Bone Joint Res . 2018 ; 7 ( 1 ): 28 – 35 . Google Scholar
18. No authors listed . ASTM F1839 - 08(2012): Standard Specification for Rigid Polyurethane Foam for Use as a Standard Material for Testing Orthopaedic Devices and Instruments . ASTM International . 2016 . https://www.astm.org/DATABASE.CART/HISTORICAL/F1839-08R12.htm (date last accessed 31 December 2020 ). Google Scholar
19. Hausmann J-T . Sawbones in Biomechanical Settings - a Review . Osteosynthesis and Trauma Care . 2006 ; 14 ( 4 ): 259 – 264 . Google Scholar
20. Schoenfeld AJ , Battula S , Sahai V , et al. Pullout strength and load to failure properties of self-tapping cortical screws in synthetic and cadaveric environments representative of healthy and osteoporotic bone . J Trauma . 2008 ; 64 ( 5 ): 1302 – 1307 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
21. No authors listed . ASTM F543 - 07: Standard Specification and Test Methods for Metallic Medical Bone Screws . ASTM International . 2007 . https://www.astm.org/DATABASE.CART/HISTORICAL/F543-07.htm (date last accessed 31 December 2020 ). Google Scholar
22. Downey MW , Kosmopoulos V , Carpenter BB . Fully Threaded Versus Partially Threaded Screws: Determining Shear in Cancellous Bone Fixation . J Foot Ankle Surg . 2015 ; 54 ( 6 ): 1021 – 1024 . Google Scholar
23. Oftadeh R , Perez-Viloria M , Villa-Camacho JC , Vaziri A , Nazarian A . Biomechanics and mechanobiology of trabecular bone: a review . J Biomech Eng . 2015 ; 137 ( 1 ): 0108021 – 01080215 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
24. Benli S , Aksoy S , Havıtcıoğlu H , Kucuk M . Evaluation of bone plate with low-stiffness material in terms of stress distribution . J Biomech . 2008 ; 41 ( 15 ): 3229 – 3235 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
25. MacLeod AR , Pankaj P , Simpson AHRW . Does screw-bone interface modelling matter in finite element analyses? J Biomech . 2012 ; 45 ( 9 ): 1712 – 1716 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
26. Geng JP , Ma QS , Xu W , Tan KBC , Liu GR . Finite element analysis of four thread-form configurations in a stepped screw implant . J Oral Rehabil . 2004 ; 31 ( 3 ): 233 – 239 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
27. Geng JP , Xu W , Tan KBC , Liu GR . Finite element analysis of an osseointegrated stepped screw dental implant . J Oral Implantol . 2004 ; 30 ( 4 ): 223 – 233 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
28. Kim Y-Y , Choi W-S , Rhyu K-W . Assessment of pedicle screw pullout strength based on various screw designs and bone densities-an ex vivo biomechanical study . Spine J . 2012 ; 12 ( 2 ): 164 – 168 . Google Scholar
29. Chun H-J , Cheong S-Y , Han J-H , et al. Evaluation of design parameters of osseointegrated dental implants using finite element analysis . J Oral Rehabil . 2002 ; 29 ( 6 ): 565 – 574 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
30. Chang PK , Chen YC , Huang CC , WH L , Chen YC , Tsai HH . Distribution of micromotion in implants and alveolar bone with different thread profiles in immediate loading: a finite element study . Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants . 2012 ; 27 : e96 – 101 . PubMed Google Scholar
31. Gracco A , Giagnorio C , Incerti Parenti S , Alessandri Bonetti G , Siciliani G . Effects of thread shape on the pullout strength of miniscrews . Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop . 2012 ; 142 ( 2 ): 186 – 190 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
32. Oswal M , Amasi U , Oswal M , Bhagat A . Influence of three different implant thread designs on stress distribution: a three-dimensional finite element analysis . J Indian Prosthodont Soc . 2016 ; 16 ( 4 ): 359 – 365 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
33. Yashwant AV , Dilip S , Krishnaraj R , Ravi K . Does Change in Thread Shape Influence the Pull Out Strength of Mini Implants? An In vitro Study . JCDR . 2017 ; 11 ( 5 ): ZC17 – ZC20 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
34. Zhand T , Bai S , Cook I , Szczesniak M , Maclean J , Dokos S . Modeling of pharyngoesophageal segment during tracheoesophageal phonation in total laryngectomy patients with preliminary validation . Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc . 2016 ; 2016 : 2917 – 2920 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
35. Wang Y , Mori R , Ozoe N , Nakai T , Uchio Y . Proximal half angle of the screw thread is a critical design variable affecting the pull-out strength of cancellous bone screws . Clin Biomech . 2009 ; 24 ( 9 ): 781 – 785 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
36. Morgan EF , Keaveny TM . Dependence of yield strain of human trabecular bone on anatomic site . J Biomech . 2001 ; 34 ( 5 ): 569 – 577 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
37. Kulper SA , Fang CX , Ren X , et al. Development and initial validation of a novel smoothed-particle hydrodynamics-based simulation model of trabecular bone penetration by metallic implants . J Orthop Res . 2018 ; 36 : 1114 – 1123 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
38. Kulper SA , Sze KY , Fang CX , et al. A novel fracture mechanics model explaining the axial penetration of bone-like porous, compressible solids by various orthopaedic implant tips . J Mech Behav Biomed Mater . 2018 ; 80 : 128 – 136 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
39. Villa MT , White LE , Alam M , Yoo SS , Walton RL . Barbed sutures: a review of the literature . Plast Reconstr Surg . 2008 ; 121 ( 3 ): 102e – 108 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
40. Zayed MA , Fouda UM , Elsetohy KA , Zayed SM , Hashem AT , Youssef MA . Barbed sutures versus conventional sutures for uterine closure at cesarean section; a randomized controlled trial . J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med . 2019 ; 32 ( 5 ): 710 – 717 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
41. Fenech CM , Keaveny TM . A cellular solid criterion for predicting the axial-shear failure properties of bovine trabecular bone . J Biomech Eng . 1999 ; 121 ( 4 ): 414 – 422 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
42. MacLeod AR , Simpson AHRW , Pankaj P . Age-related optimization of screw placement for reduced loosening risk in locked plating . J Orthop Res . 2016 ; 34 ( 11 ): 1856 – 1864 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
Author contributions
X. Feng: Performed the biomechanical test and finite element analysis, Drafted the manuscript.
W. Qi: Designed the screws for the study.
C. X. Fang: Analyzed and interpreted the data.
W. W. Lu: Analyzed and interpreted the data.
F. K. L. Leung: Designed the experiments, Revised the manuscript.
B. Chen: Designed the experiments, Revised the manuscript.
X. Feng and W. Qi contributed equally to this work.
Funding statement
This study was supported by Platform Research Projects of Hong Kong Innovation and Technology Support Programme (ITS-329-19-FP).No benefits in any form have been received or will be received from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this article.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Mr. Stephen Chan for his assistance related to instrumentation and data collection for this paper.
Ethical review statement
None required.
© 2021 Author(s) et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) licence, which permits the copying and redistribution of the work only, and provided the original author and source are credited. See https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
