Stress shielding is created following a reduction in bone density due to the reduction or elimination of mechanical stimuli and the resultant stresses around the implant site in bone tissue. Increased stress shielding can cause the implant or screw to detach or loosen over time, which in turn can lead to severe side effects such as pain, infection, necrosis, and dysfunction. The geometric shape and characteristics of the screws are among the most important factors involved in creating the stress shielding. Hence, the current study aimed to evaluate the influence of bone screw design parameters (i.e., thread profile, thread pitch, screw diameter, and elastic modulus) on stress shielding around the standard screws after implantation in the proximal femur using a viscoelastic finite element modelling. Stress transfer parameters (STP) and strain energy density transfer parameters (SEDTP) were used to evaluate the stress shielding and the risk of screw loosening using the finite element method. This study was performed on screws with titanium and beta-titanium alloy materials as well as HB, HC, and HD ISO threads that are considered as implants for fracture fixation. The results indicated that the HB ISO thread has the least stress shielding and looseness. It was also found that reducing the modulus of elasticity of the screws, increasing the number of threads per screw, reducing the pitch of the screws and the diameter of the screws shaft reduce the amount of the stress shielding and loosening of the screws. This study can provide surgeons with valuable quantitative data for selecting the effective types of screws for bone fracture fixations towards enhanced clinical outcomes.
Mardani-KiviMMirbolookAJahromiSK, et al.Fixation of intertrochanteric fractures: dynamic hip screw versus locking compression plate. Trauma Mon. 2013; 18(2):67–70.
2.
ZhengYFZhouJLWangXH, et al.Biomechanical study of the fixation strength of anteromedial plating for humeral shaft fractures. Chin Med J. 2016; 129(15):1850–1855.
3.
Mow VanCHuiskesR3rd ed., Basic orthopedic biomechanics and mechano-biology, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2005.
4.
HalvorsonTLKelleyLAThomasKA, et al.Effects of bone mineral density on pedicle screw fixation. Spine1994; 19(21):2415–2420.
5.
AmiroucheFSolitroGFMagnanBP. Stability and spine pedicle screws fixation strength - a comparative study of bone density and insertion angle. Spine Deformity. 2016; 4(4):261–267.
6.
InalSGokKGokA, et al.Comparison of biomechanical effects of different configurations of kirschner wires on the epiphyseal plate and stability in a salter-harris type 2 distal femoral fracture model. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2019; 109(1):13–21.
7.
GokKGokAKisiogluY. Computer aided finite element simulation of the developed driller system for bone drilling process in orthopedic surgery. J Adv Manuf Syst.2019; 18(4): 583–594.
8.
BilginBMGokKGokA. Three-dimensional finite element model of friction drilling process from hot forming processes. Journal of Process Mechanical Engineering. 2017; 231 (3): 548–554.
9.
ErdemMGokKGokceB, et al.Numerical analysis of temperature, screwing moment and thrust force using finite element method in bone screwing process. J Mech Med Biol. 2017; 17(2): 1750016.
10.
GefenA. Computational simulations of stress shielding and bone resorption around existing and computer-designed orthopaedic screws. Med Biol Eng Comput. 2002; 40:311–322.
11.
GeffenA. Optimizing the biomechanical compatibility of orthopedic screws for bone fracture fixation, Med Eng Phys2002; 24: 337–347.
12.
LoweryGLMcDonoughRF. The significance of hardware failure in anterior cervical plate fixation. Patients with 2-to 7-year follow-up. Spine. 1998; 23: 181–187.
13.
TencerAFAsnisSEHarringtonRM, et al.Biomechanics of cannulated and noncannulated screws. Cannulated screw fixation. New York. Springer-Verlag.1996; pp.15–40.
14.
PilliarRMCameronHUBinningtonAG, et al.Bone ingrowth and stress shielding with a porous surface coated fracture fixation plate. J Biomed Mat er Res1979; 13: 799–810.
15.
TomitaNKutsunaTTamaiS, et al.Mechanical effects of a cushioned plate on bone fixation. Bio Med Mater Eng1991; 1: 243–250.
16.
HuiskesRWeinansHVan ReitbergenB. The relationship between stress shielding and bone resorption around total hip stems and the effects of flexible materials. Clin Orthop1992; 274: 124–134.
17.
TomitaNKutsunaT. Experimental studies on the use of a cushioned plate for internal fixation. Int Orthop1987; 1:135–139.
18.
HaaseKRouhiG. Prediction of stress shielding around an orthopedic screw: using stress and strain energy density as mechanical stimuli. Comput Biol Med. 2013; 43(11):1748–1757.
19.
TettehEMcCulloughMBA. Impact of screw thread shape on stress transfer in bone: a finite element study. Journal of computer methods in biomechanics and biomedical engineering. 2020; 23: 1–6, DOI: 10.1080/10255842.2020.1743980.
20.
VahdatiARouhiGGhalichiF, et al.Mechanically Induced Trabecular Bone Remodeling cellular accommodation effect: a computer simulation. Canadian Society for Mechanical Engineering Transactions2008; 32(3–4):371–382.
21.
WeinansHHuiskesRGrootenboerHJ. The behaviour of adaptive bone-remodeling simulation- models. J Biomech. 1992; 25: 1425–1441.
22.
HaghighiBTahaniMRouhiG. Analysis of bone remodelling around functionally graded orthopaedic screw and comparison with metal screw using finite element method. Iranian journal of Biomedical Engineering2011; 5:33–44.
23.
LinCLLinYHChangSH. Multi-Factorial analysis of variables influencing the bone loss of an implant placed in the maxilla: prediction using FEA and SED bone remodelling algorithm. J Biomech. 2010; 43: 644–651.
24.
HaaseK. Finite Element Analysis of orthopaedic plate and screw to reduce the effects of stress shielding. MS Thesis. University of Ottawa. Canada; 2010.
25.
ZardiackasLD, Wiley encyclopedia of biomedical engineering. New York. John Wiley & Sons. 2006; Vol 6:3589–3596.
26.
MarquardtBShettyRBeta titanium alloy processed for high strength orthopedic applications. J ASTM Int (JAI). 2005; 2: 9.
27.
XianfangYWangLWangR, et al.Finite Element Analysis on Strains of Viscoelastic Human Skull and Duramater, Finite Element Analysis, MoratalD (Ed.). InTech. 2010.
28.
MezerovaL. Experimental verification of viscoelastic properties of spongy bone tissue. Eur Cell Mater. 2004; 7: 45–46.
29.
MorlockMSchneiderEBluhmA, et al.Duration and frequency of everyday activities in total hip patients. J Biomech. 2001; 34:873–881.
30.
PhillipsATM. Structural optimisation: biomechanics of the femur. Engineering and Computational Mechanics. 2012; 165: 147–154.
31.
Schuller-GötzburgPKrenkelCReiterTJ, et al.2D-finite element analyses and histomorphology of lag screws with and without a biconcave washer. J Biomech. 1999; 32: 511–520.
32.
OmuraTTakahashiMKoideY, et al.Evaluation of isolated fractures of the greater trochanter with magnetic resonance imaging. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2000; 120: 195–197.
33.
AndreausUCollocaM. Prediction of micromotion initiation of an implanted femur under physiological loads and constraints using the finite element method. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2009; 223(5):589–605.
34.
SteinerJAFergusonSJvan LentheGH. Screw insertion in trabecular bone causes peri-implant bone damage. Med Eng Phys. 2016; 38(4):417–422.
35.
Sánchez-SilesMBaptista IlhaJFernández RuizJA, et al.Evaluation of primary stability and early healing of 2 implant macrodesigns placed in the posterior maxilla: a split-mouth prospective randomized controlled clinical study. Journal of Oral Science & Rehabilitation. 2019; 5: 8–15.
36.
UngersböckAPerrenSMPohlerO. Comparison of the tissue reaction to implants made of a beta titanium alloy and pure titanium. Experimental study on rabbits.Journal of Material Science: Materials in Medicine. 1994; 5: 788–792.
37.
GehrkeSAEliers TreichelTLPérez-DíazL, et al.Impact of different titanium implant thread designs on bone healing: a biomechanical and histometric study with an animal model. 2019; 8:777.
38.
TorabiMKhorramymehrSNikkhooM, et al.The effect of orthopedic screw profiles on the healing time of femoral neck fracture. Journal of Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical engineering2022; 25(1): 97–110.
39.
HolmgrenEPSeckingerRJKilgrenLM, et al.Evaluating parameters of osseointegrated dental implant using finite element analysis a two-dimensional comparative study examining the effects of implant diameter, implant shape, and load direction. JOI (J Oral Implantol); 24: 80–88.
