Conventional locking compression plate (LCP) made of non-biodegradable materials are well-known bone implants for internal fracture fixation because of their proven experimental success. LCP, however, is mechanically underpowered when made up of biodegradable materials (even with Mg-alloy). The biodegradable implant plate should not only exhibit adequate mechanical performance during implantation but also perform well after fracture, at least until complete healing of the fractured bone. With the aim of achieving enhanced mechanical performance, the design of the LCP has been modified to the design of Biodegradable Locking Compression Plate (BLCP) by adding a suitable thickness in the middle (only 4.6% of the total volume of the LCP), which may help retain some additional strength during implantation and after degradation. Both BLCP and LCP have been comparatively analyzed via FEM with the aid of axial compression and four-point bending tests. BLCP has a better mechanical capability of withstanding loads in its degraded form than in its non-degradable form. Furthermore, BLCP is up to 15.83% mechanically better in the non-degraded form as compared to LCP, which again becomes up to 100% more mechanically adequate in the degraded forms of BLCP than in LCP. BLCP is found safe for degradation up to 2 mm or 6 months with an estimated degradation rate of 4 mm/year, which may allow it to support fractured bone for at least the standard healing time. BLCP can be considered as a superior biodegradable bone implant plate after experimental assurance with the physiological environment and may replace LCP.
LiJQinLYangK, et al.Materials evolution of bone plates for internal fixation of bone fractures: a review. J Mater Sci Technol2020; 36: 190–208. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmst.2019.07.024.
ChandraGPandeyA. Design approaches and challenges for biodegradable bone implants: a review. Expert Rev Med Devices2021; 18(7): 629–648. DOI: 10.1080/17434440.2021.1935875.
4.
BelJC. Pitfalls and limits of locking plates. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res2019; 105(1): S103–S109. DOI: 10.1016/j.otsr.2018.04.031.
5.
MoazenMJonesACJinZ, et al.Periprosthetic fracture fixation of the femur following total hip arthroplasty: a review of biomechanical testing. Clin Biomech2011; 26(1): 13–22. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2010.09.002.
6.
RouhiGHamedaniMA. A Brief Introduction into Orthopaedic Implants: Screws, Plates, And Nails”. Res, 2012, pp. 1–19.
7.
TorresYTruebaPPavónJJ, et al.Design, processing and characterization of titanium with radial graded porosity for bone implants. Mater Des2016; 110: 179–187. DOI: 10.1016/j.matdes.2016.07.135.
8.
ChandraGPandeyA. Biodegradable bone implants in orthopedic applications: a review. Biocybern Biomed Eng2020; 40(2): 596–610. DOI: 10.1016/j.bbe.2020.02.003.
9.
XiaoCWangLRenY, et al.Indirectly extruded biodegradable Zn-0.05wt%Mg alloy with improved strength and ductility: in vitro and in vivo studies. J Mater Sci Technol2018; 34(9): 1618–1627. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmst.2018.01.006.
10.
KimTSeeCWLiX, et al.Orthopedic implants and devices for bone fractures and defects: Past, present and perspective. Eng Regen2020; 1: 6–18. DOI: 10.1016/j.engreg.2020.05.003.
11.
KoçMTahmasebifarAEvisZ, et al.Review of magnesium-based biomaterials and their applications. J Magnes Alloy2018; 6(1): 23–43. DOI: 10.1016/j.jma.2018.02.003.
12.
RamosDMDhandapaniRSubramanianA, et al.Clinical complications of biodegradable screws for ligament injuries. Mater Sci Eng C2020; 109: 110423. DOI: 10.1016/j.msec.2019.110423.
13.
HanHSLoffredoSJunI, et al.Current status and outlook on the clinical translation of biodegradable metals. Mater Today2019; 23: 57–71. DOI: 10.1016/j.mattod.2018.05.018.
14.
ChandraGPandeyA. Preparation strategies for Mg-alloys for biodegradable orthopaedic implants and other biomedical applications: a review: IRBM2020; ■■■: ■■■. DOI: 10.1016/j.irbm.2020.06.003.
15.
WitteFEliezerAWitteF. Biodegradable metals. Mater Sci Eng R2012; 77: 1–34. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4614-3942-4_5.
16.
LiZChenMLiW, et al.The synergistic effect of trace Sr and Zr on the microstructure and properties of a biodegradable Mg-Zn-Zr-Sr alloy. J Alloys Compd2017; 702: 290–302. DOI: 10.1016/j.jallcom.2017.01.178.
17.
ChandraGPandeyA. Effectiveness of laddered embossed structure in a locking compression plate for biodegradable orthopaedic implants. J Biomater Appl2022; 36(7): 1213–1230. DOI: 10.1177/08853282211058945.
18.
ChenYXuZSmithC, et al.Recent advances on the development of magnesium alloys for biodegradable implants. Acta Biomaterialia2014; 10(11): 4561–4573. DOI: 10.1016/j.actbio.2014.07.005.
19.
ZengWLiuYHouX. Biomechanical evaluation of internal fixation implants for femoral neck fractures: a comparative finite element analysis. Comput Methods Programs Biomed2020; 196: 105714. DOI: 10.1016/j.cmpb.2020.105714.
20.
KimHJKimSHChangSH. Finite element analysis using interfragmentary strain theory for the fracture healing process to which composite bone plates are applied. Compos Struct2011; 93(11): 2953–2962. DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2011.05.008.
21.
LeeYOgiharaNLeeT. Assessment of finite element models for prediction of osteoporotic fracture. J Mech Behav Biomed MaterElsevier, 2019; 97: 312–320. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2019.05.018.
22.
LiCGuoCFitzpatrickV, et al.Design of biodegradable, implantable devices towards clinical translation. Nat Rev Mater2020; 5(1): 61–81. DOI: 10.1038/s41578-019-0150-z.
23.
KanchanomaiCPhiphobmongkolVMuanjanP. Fatigue failure of an orthopedic implant - A locking compression plate. Eng Fail Anal2008; 15(5): 521–530. DOI: 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2007.04.001.
24.
SandriesserSRuppMGreinwaldM, et al.Locking design affects the jamming of screws in locking plates. Injury2018; 49: S61–S65. DOI: 10.1016/S0020-1383(18)30306-1.
25.
PleckoMLagerpuschNPegelB, et al.The influence of different osteosynthesis configurations with locking compression plates (LCP) on stability and fracture healing after an oblique 45° angle osteotomy. Injury2012; 43(7): 1041–1051. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2011.12.016.
26.
ChandraGPandeyA. Design and analysis of biodegradable buttress threaded screws for fracture fixation in orthopedics: a finite element analysis. Biomed Phys Eng Express2021; 7(4): 45010. DOI: 10.1088/2057-1976/ac00d1.
27.
ChandraGPandeyATipanN. Longitudinally centered embossed structure in the locking compression plate for biodegradable bone implant plate: a finite element analysis. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin2021; 6: 1–16. DOI: 10.1080/10255842.2021.1970145.
28.
SanchezAHMLuthringerBJCFeyerabendF, et al.Mg and Mg alloys: how comparable are in vitro and in vivo corrosion rates? A review. Acta Biomater2015; 13(3): 16–31. DOI: 10.1016/j.actbio.2014.11.048.
29.
KumarKGillRSBatraU. Challenges and opportunities for biodegradable magnesium alloy implants. Mater Technol2018; 33(2): 153–172. DOI: 10.1080/10667857.2017.1377973.
30.
FanJQiuXNiuX, et al.Microstructure, mechanical properties, in vitro degradation and cytotoxicity evaluations of Mg-1.5Y-1.2Zn-0.44Zr alloys for biodegradable metallic implants. Mater Sci Eng C2013; 33(4): 2345–2352. DOI: 10.1016/j.msec.2013.01.063.
31.
HouLLiZZhaoH, et al.Microstructure, mechanical properties, corrosion behavior and biocompatibility of as-extruded biodegradable Mg–3Sn–1Zn–0.5Mn alloy. J Mater Sci Technol2016; 32(9): 874–882. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmst.2016.07.004.
32.
KangYDuBLiY, et al.Optimizing mechanical property and cytocompatibility of the biodegradable Mg-Zn-Y-Nd alloy by hot extrusion and heat treatment. J Mater Sci Technol2019; 35(1): 6–18. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmst.2018.09.020.
33.
YanYCaoHKangY, et al.Effects of Zn concentration and heat treatment on the microstructure, mechanical properties and corrosion behavior of as-extruded Mg-Zn alloys produced by powder metallurgy. J Alloys Compd2017; 693: 1277–1289. DOI: 10.1016/j.jallcom.2016.10.017.
34.
CuiZLiWChengL, et al.Effect of nano-HA content on the mechanical properties, degradation and biocompatible behavior of Mg-Zn/HA composite prepared by spark plasma sintering. Mater Charact2019; 151: 620–631. DOI: 10.1016/j.matchar.2019.03.048.
35.
PickJStackJAnsonB. Measurements on the human femur I. lengths, diamters and angles. Q Bull Northwest Univ Med Sch, 1941; 15(4): 281–290.
36.
BrandSKlotzJHasselT, et al.Intraprosthetic screw fixation increases primary fixation stability in periprosthetic fractures of the femur-A biomechanical study. Med Eng Phys2014; 36(2): 239–243. DOI: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2013.07.016.
37.
SepehriBTaheriEGanjiR. Biomechanical analysis of diversified screw arrangement on 11 holes locking compression plate considering time-varying properties of callus. Biocybern Biomed Eng2014; 34(4): 220–229. DOI: 10.1016/j.bbe.2014.05.001.
38.
ASTM F382-17. Standard Specification and Test Method for Metallic Bone Plates. West Conshohocken; PA: ASTM International, 2017, www.astm.org
39.
BuiHPTomarSCourtecuisseH, et al.Real-time error control for surgical simulation. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng2018; 65(3): 596–607. DOI: 10.1109/TBME.2017.2695587.
40.
ChandraGPandeyAPandeyS. Design of a biodegradable plate for femoral shaft fracture fixation. Med Eng Phys2020; 81: 86–96. DOI: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2020.05.010.
41.
BurkhartTAAndrewsDMDunningCE. Finite element modeling mesh quality, energy balance and validation methods: a review with recommendations associated with the modeling of bone tissue. J Biomech2013; 46(9): 1477–1488. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2013.03.022.
42.
RuggieroAD’AmatoRAffatatoS. Comparison of meshing strategies in THR finite element modelling. Materials2019; 12(14): 2332–2411. DOI: 10.3390/ma12142332.
43.
YangYHeCDianyuE, et al.Mg bone implant: features, developments and perspectives. Mater DesElsevier, 2020; 185: 108259. DOI: 10.1016/j.matdes.2019.108259.
