Get Permission Pantham, Shakuntala Soujanya, Abhishek Reddy, Vinuthna, Kranthi, and Durga Keerthi: Evaluation of surface changes of stainless steel miniplates and screws following retrieval


Introduction

From past few decades miniplates were used very often to facilitate the stability between fractured segments of bone in the Maxillo-Facial region. But now a days it is the most common preferential method used especially for stabilization of about two-thirds of mandibular fractures.1 Then among all, it’s the stainless steel miniplates and screws (Fe-Cr-Ni-Mo alloys) which are most commonly used in India.

However, these metal implants are found to be possessing corrosive degardation in body fluids which has been already demonstarted in various laboratory tests, both under simulated clinical conditions and by electrochemical methods, as well as in studies of retrieved metal implants.2, 3 And a high frequency of interfacial corrosion defects has been reported in multicomponent stainless steel orthopedic fixation devices. Apart from them, an overall higher frequency of handling defects such as scratches, drilling defects, metal tongue formation and splinters were also observed.4

In situ degradation of these metal-alloy implants is very much undesirable as it leads to loss of the structural integrity of the implant and also the release of these degradation products may elicit an adverse biological reaction in the host.5, 6 These unwanted biological changes in the tissues adjacent to implants occurs secondary to the accumulation of various corrosion and wear products either as metal ions or particles and often manifested as hypersensitivity reactions, mild fibrosis, infection and/or necrosis.7

In spite of the successful reports of stability attained by metal implants, stainless steel miniplates and screws, they are also associated with certain drawbacks occurring as a consequence to the unwanted interactions occurring between electrochemical and mechanical processes. These interactions may lead to stress corrosion cracking, corrosion fatigue and fretting corrosion etc. and accelerates the release of corrosion and wear products causing premature structural failure and ultimate bone loss.8

Thus, the adverse reactions secondary to corrosion products of implanted devices has become the growing concern and initiated a discussion of whether to remove plates and screws after healing or not.9 The aim of the present study is to evaluate the surface changes for corrosion, surface roughness, micro-fractures and tensile strength of stainless-steel miniplates and screws retrieved retrieved from 20 patients which were used as rigid internal fixation in management of maxillofacial fractures.

Figure 1

Implant retrieval

https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/typeset-prod-media-server/8e692f37-454d-492c-b697-ce4526b985bfimage1.png
Figure 2

Scanning electron microscope (Tescan; Model: Vega 3LMU)

https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/typeset-prod-media-server/8e692f37-454d-492c-b697-ce4526b985bfimage2.png
Figure 3

Stereomicroscope

https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/typeset-prod-media-server/8e692f37-454d-492c-b697-ce4526b985bfimage3.png
Figure 4

Universal testing machine (Dak Systems Inc.'s Series 9000)

https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/typeset-prod-media-server/8e692f37-454d-492c-b697-ce4526b985bfimage4.png
Figure 5

Miniplates tested for tensile strength.

https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/typeset-prod-media-server/8e692f37-454d-492c-b697-ce4526b985bfimage5.png
Figure 6

Scanning electron microscope- corrosion of stainless steel miniplates

https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/typeset-prod-media-server/8e692f37-454d-492c-b697-ce4526b985bfimage6.png
Figure 7

Scanning electron microscope- surface roughness and micro-fractures

https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/typeset-prod-media-server/8e692f37-454d-492c-b697-ce4526b985bfimage7.png
Figure 8

Stereomicroscope images

https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/typeset-prod-media-server/8e692f37-454d-492c-b697-ce4526b985bfimage8.png
Table 1

Surface analysis of stainless-steel mini plates and screws

No of patients

Surface roughness and microfractures

Corrosion degradation

20

20/20 100%

13/20 65%

Reason

No. of patients

%

Palpability

0

0%

Sinus opening

1

5%

Pain

1

5%

Plate exposure

1

5%

Swelling

3

15%

Patient’s request

14

70%

Table 2

Sites of plate removal

Site

No. of plates

Rate

Fronto-zygomatic suture

0

0%

Maxilla

10

29.41%

Symphysis of mandible

0

0%

Parasymphysis of mandible

7

20.58%

Body of mandible

17

50%

Angle of mandible

0

0%

Table 3

Tensile strength of mini plates

Plates

Ultimate tensile strenght N/sq.mm

Plate 1

492

Plate 2

449

Plate 3

468

Plate 4

518

Plate 5

510

Plate 6

503

Plate 7

516

Plate 8

511

Plate 9

511

Plate 10

476

Plate 11

519

Plate 12

482

Plate 13

446

Plate 14

465

Plate 15

517

Plate 16

506

Plate 17

508

Plate 18

511

Plate 19

509

Plate 20

521

Plate 21

467

Plate 22

519

Plate 23

511

Plate 24

502

Plate 25

515

Plate 26

511

Plate 27

522

Plate 28

475

Plate 29

519

Plate 30

493

Plate 31

442

Plate 32

466

Plate 33

512

Plate 34

515

Mean

497

Aims and Objectives of The Study

The aims and objectives of the present study is to evaluate the surface changes like

  1. Corrosion

  2. Surface roughness,

  3. Micro fractures,

  4. Tensile strength of stainless steel miniplates and screws retrieved from 20 patients which were used as rigid internal fixation in the treatment of maxillofacial fractures.

Materials and Methods

After the concerned ethical committee approval and informed consent, 20 patients treated for maxillofacial trauma at the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Meghna Institute of Dental Sciences, Nizamabad were selected. From them stainless-steel bone plates and screws were retrieved through intraoral approach which were cleaned under running water, dried and stored in a sterilized container for further evaluation (Figure 1).

Inclusion criteria

  1. Those patients in which stainless steel miniplates and screws were used as rigid internal fixation in the management of Maxillofacial fracture.

  2. Symptomatic patients with complains of

    1. Presence of infection, intra-oral sinus or extra oral sinus opening

    2. Dehiscence at the operated site

    3. Palpability of the plates

    4. Exposure of plates

    5. Thermal sensitivity

    6. Patient discomfort and psychological reasons

    7. Patient personal willingness for removal

    8. Completed bone healing as evident on radiographs

Exclusion criteria

  1. Medically compromised patients

  2. Patients unwilling for second surgery

Evaluation of surface changes like corrosion, surface roughness, micro-fractures

The retrieved implants were evaluated for the surface changes like corrosion, surface roughness and micro-fractures using stereomicroscope and scanning electron microscope where the initial evaluation was done under scanning electron microscope (Tescan; Model: Vega3LMU) at the Department of Metallurgical and Material Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Warangal, Telangana State (Figure 2). Then another evaluation was done under stereo microscope at the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology, Meghna Institute of Dental Sciences Nizamabad (Figure 3).

Evaluation of tensile strength

After the surface change evaluation, the implants were subjected to the universal testing machine (Dak Systems Inc.'s Series 9000) to measure the tensile strength where the plates were mounted onto the jaws of the testing machine and tested at a constant cross head speed of 2mm/min. Finally, the peak load at which the plates failed in tension was noted down as ultimate stress (Figure 4, Figure 5).

Observation and Results

On microscopic examination of 34 stainless steel miniplates and 101 stainless steel screws retrieved from 20 patients, the primary cause for the surface roughness and micro-fractures was found to be due to the handling errors, bending of plates while placement and drilling injuries at the countersink areas. Corrosion degradation were seen in the countersink areas, often with break in the continuity of the metallic surface appearing as patches often localized to the counter sink areas or involving one or two countersinks within the same plate. Corrosion never extended onto the free surface outside the countersink area. Bone tissue covering parts of the countersink region was seen associated with a screw hole in two of the stainless-steel plates (Figure 6, Figure 7, Figure 8).

Among the total sample of 20 patients, the surface roughness and microfractures were seen in all of them (100%) whereas corrosion degradation was seen in 65% of patients (Table 1). When the reason for the plate removal was analysed, it was ought to be removed on patient’s request followed by onset of swelling and other complications (Table 2). Then among the various sites of fractures included in the study, from which plates were retrieved, the majority of them are contributed by body of mandible followed by maxillary fractures and Para symphysis fractures (Table 3). Similarly, when tensile strength of miniplates was evaluated, a mean tensile strength of 497 N/sq.mm was found.

Discussion

Stainless steel miniplates and screws are used for rigid internal fixation to immobilize fractures of the maxillofacial skeleton. But should the non-functional miniplates and screws be removed after a few years or not is still debatable amongst the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons.10 According to literature the decision to leave miniplates in situ may be influenced by factors such as biocompatibility of the material and the implication of a second procedure to remove miniplates.11

In present study 34 stainless steel miniplates and 101 stainless steels screws retrieved from 20 patients were evaluated. Surface roughness on the surface of a majority of the plates could be observed usually as sharp-edged scratches on the free surfaces as well as on the counter sink areas of the plates. Micro-fractures were seen in the countersink regions sometimes leaving metal tongue formation or splinters. The surface roughness and micro-fractures were due to handling errors and bending of plates during placement and also during drilling injuries in the countersink areas.

Corrosion degradation was seen in the countersink areas, often with break in the continuity of the metallic surface, appearing as patches often localized to the counter sink areas or involving one or two countersinks within the same plate. In present study surface roughness and micro-fractures were seen in all 100% of the stainless steel miniplates and screws whereas corrosion degradation was seen in 65 % of stainless steel miniplates. The above findings were in correlation with the studies of S. Torgersen et al. and then in 1994 S. Torgerson et al. while working on surface changes exhibited by stainless steel plates, using scanning electron microscopy and stereo microscopy, they found it to be present in the form of sharp-edged scratches. Similar mechanical surface defects were also found in the countersink regions along with corrosive degradation and an occasional metal tongue formations or splinters evident at the periphery of screw holes. However, the corrosion defects were found to be present localized to the countersink areas, appearing as restricted and patchy areas or often involves one or two countersinks within the same plate. The other visible defects exhibited are minor scratches on the screw heads, on the chamfer underside of the screw head and along the screw threads. These defects were found to be exhibited by all the 100 % stainless-steel plates and screws whereas 19% of the miniplates showed corrosion and 7% of screws showed corrosion.12 In 1999 M.S. Ray et al. in their scanning electron microscopic and stereo microscopic study of 15 stainless steel plates and 60 screws, they found the surface roughness exhibited in the form of few gouges’ marks adherent to metal particles as well as rough metallic edges and protuberances presenting around the circumference of several screws’ holes in the counter sink areas.13 In present study of tensile strength of 34 stainless steel miniplates was evaluated, a mean value of 497N was exhibited by the retrieved miniplates which was enough to withstand the masticatory forces. The maximum masticatory forces in healthy young individuals have been measured as 660N in molar region and 290N in incisor region. However, these forces are probably higher than forces exhibited during post-operative period. This finding is in acceptance with that of R.A. Loukota et al. in 1995. Who made a mechanical analysis of miniplates which showed ultimate tensile properties of above 500N and said that plates are rarely exposed to actual tension.14

The present study results through scanning electron microscopy and stereo microscopy showed surface roughness, micro-fractures and corrosion. However tensile strength was not affected when the plates were in situ. Thus, following the symptoms of retained stainless steel plates and screws, we recommend their removal after the purposes of rigid fixation have been fulfilled.

Summary and Conclusion

  1. Metal implants become a useless foreign body and a potential source of problems once their purpose is served. For this reason, miniplate retrieval should be advised on routine basis after bone healing has occurred as it is better and easier to retrieve asymptomatic implants than symptomatic implants. Release of metal particles into tissues from miniplates and screws is undesirable and may be minimized by careful surgical technique. In addition, metal implants should be free from of rough edges or protuberances on the surfaces to minimize the risk of detachment and deposition of particles into surrounding tissues.

  2. Implant failure is multifactorial which mainly depends upon the quality control by the manufacturer and use of the proper technique by the surgeon.

  3. In present study, surface roughness and micro-fractures were found in all the stainless steel miniplates and screws that is 100% and corrosion degradation of stainless steel miniplates was found in 13 of 20 patients that is 65%. In present study of tensile strength of 34 stainless steel miniplates, a mean value of 497N was exhibited by the retrieved miniplates which was enough to withstand the masticatory forces.

This small study recommends the retrieval of stainless miniplates and screws after their purpose of rigid fixation is served. However long-term studies need to be carried out for further supporting the results.

Source of Funding

None.

Conflict of Interest

None.

References

1 

S Torgersen N R Gjerdet Retrieval study of stainless steel and titanium nminiplates and screws used in maxillofacial surgeryJ Mater Sci Mater Med1994525662

2 

M Cramers U Lucht Metal sensitivity in patients treated for tibial fractures with plates of stainless steelActa Orthop Scand19774832459 10.3109/17453677708988763

3 

A Kreicbergs Pseudotumor after metal fixation of a fracture surgery. A case reportActa Orthop Scand19835457398110.3109/17453678308996621

4 

S D Cook K A Thomas A F Harding C L Collins R J Haddad M Milicic The in vivo performance of 250 internal fixation devices: a follow-up studyBiomaterials1987831778410.1016/0142-9612(87)90060-3

5 

R H Haug Retention of asymptomatic bone plates used for Orthognathic surgery and facial fracturesJ Oral Maxillofac Surg1996545611710.1016/s0278-2391(96)90644-8

6 

B Alpert Seligson D: Removal of asymptomatic bone plates used for orthognathic surgery and facial fracturesJ Oral Maxillofac Surg19965456182110.1016/s0278-2391(96)90645-x

7 

M M Mofid R C Thompson C A Pardo P N Manson V Kolk Biocompatibility of fixation materials in the brainPlast Reconstr Surg19971001142010.1097/00006534-199707000-00003

8 

A Dugal G Thakur Surface analysis of indigenous stainless steel miniplates used in facial fracturesJ Maxillofac Oral Surg201094403610.1007/s12663-010-0094-8PMCID

9 

A Nazzal S L Calderon J B Jupiter J S Rosenzweig M A Randolph S G Lee A histological analysis of the effects of stainless steel and titanium implants adjacent to tendons: an experiment rabbit studyJ Hand Surg Am200631711233010.1016/j.jhsa.2006.03.001

10 

M C Devendrappa N Kulkarni P Haidry F Kulkarni D A Verma Surface analysis of maxillofacial plates and screwsNational J Maxillofac Surg2021123

11 

M S Ray I R Matthew J W Frame Metallic fragments on the surface of miniplates and screws before insertionBr J Oral Maxillofac Surg199937114810.1054/bjom.1998.0264

12 

S Torgersen O T G Moe Immune response to nickel and some clinical observations after stainless steel miniplate osteosynthesisInt J Oral Maxillofac Surg19932242465010.1016/s0901-5027(05)80647-2

13 

R A Loukota J C Shelton Mechanical analysis of maxillofacial miniplatesBri J Oral Maxillofac Surg1995333174910.1016/0266-4356(95)90293-7

14 

I R Matthew J W Frame Policy of consultant oral and maxillofacial surgeons towards removal of miniplate components after jaw fracture fixation: pilot studyBr J Oral Maxillfac Surg1999372110210.1054/bjom.1997.0084



jats-html.xsl


This is an Open Access (OA) journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.

  • Article highlights
  • Article tables
  • Article images

Article History

Received : 04-03-2022

Accepted : 09-03-2022


View Article

PDF File   Full Text Article


Copyright permission

Get article permission for commercial use

Downlaod

PDF File   XML File   ePub File


Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

Article DOI

https://doi.org/10.18231/j.ijmi.2022.001


Article Metrics






Article Access statistics

Viewed: 885

PDF Downloaded: 268