Development of a balanced experimental–computational approach to understanding the mechanics of proximal femur fractures

The majority of people who sustain hip fractures after a fall to the side would not have been identified using current screening techniques such as areal bone mineral density. Identifying them, however, is essential so that appropriate pharmacological or lifestyle interventions can be implemented. A protocol, demonstrated on a single specimen, is introduced, comprising the following components; in vitro biofidelic drop tower testing of a proximal femur; high-speed image analysis through digital image correlation; detailed accounting of the energy present during the drop tower test; organ level finite element simulations of the drop tower test; micro level finite element simulations of critical volumes of interest in the trabecular bone. Fracture in the femoral specimen initiated in the superior part of the neck. Measured fracture load was 3760 N, compared to 4871 N predicted based on the finite element analysis. Digital image correlation showed compressive surface strains as high as 7.1% prior to fracture. Voxel level results were consistent with high-speed video data and helped identify hidden local structural weaknesses. We found using a drop tower test protocol that a femoral neck fracture can be created with a fall velocity and energy representative of a sideways fall from standing. Additionally, we found that the nested explicit finite element method used allowed us to identify local structural weaknesses associated with femur fracture initiation.

Sample size estimation: an overview with applications to orthodontic clinical trial designs

Proper sample size estimation is an important part of clinical trial methodology and closely related to the precision and power of the trial's results. Trials with sufficient sample sizes are scientifically and ethically justified and more credible compared with trials with insufficient sizes. Planning clinical trials with inadequate sample sizes might be considered as a waste of time and resources, as well as unethical, since patients might be enrolled in a study in which the expected results will not be trusted and are unlikely to have an impact on clinical practice. Because of the low emphasis of sample size calculation in clinical trials in orthodontics, it is the objective of this article to introduce the orthodontic clinician to the importance and the general principles of sample size calculations for randomized controlled trials to serve as guidance for study designs and as a tool for quality assessment when reviewing published clinical trials in our specialty. Examples of calculations are shown for 2-arm parallel trials applicable to orthodontics. The working examples are analyzed, and the implications of design or inherent complexities in each category are discussed.

Comparison of variable-thread tapered implant designs to a standard tapered implant design after immediate loading. A 3-year multicentre randomised controlled trial

This randomised, controlled multicentre trial aimed at comparing two versions of a variable-thread dental implant design to a standard tapered dental implant design in cases of immediate functional loading for 36 months after loading.

Within-subject comparison of two rigid bar designs connecting two interforaminal implants: patients' satisfaction and prosthetic results

BACKGROUND: There is evidence for the superiority of two-implant overdentures over complete dentures in the mandible. Various anchorage devices were used to provide stability to overdentures. The aim of the present study was to compare two designs of a rigid bar connecting two mandibular implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Completely edentulous patients received a new denture in the maxilla and an implant-supported overdenture in the mandible. They were randomly allocated to two groups (A or B) with regard to the bar design. A standard U-shaped bar (Dolder bar) was used connecting the two implants in a straight line. For comparison, precision attachments were soldered distal to the bar copings. Group A started the study with the standard bar (S-bar), while group B started with the attachment-bar (A-bar). After 3 months, they had to answer a questionnaire (visual analogue scale [VAS]); then the bar design was changed in both groups. After a period of another 3 months, the patients had to answer the same questions; then they had the choice to keep their preferred bar. Now the study period was extended to another year of observation, and the patients answered again the same questionnaire. In vivo force measurements were carried out with both bar types at the end of the test periods. The prosthetic maintenance service carried out during the 6-month period was recorded for both bar types in both groups. Statistical analysis as performed with the SPSS statistical package (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). RESULTS: Satisfaction was high in both groups. Group B, who had entered the study with the attachment bar, gave slightly better ratings to this type for four items, while in group A, no differences were found. At the end of the 6-month comparison period, all but one patient wished to continue to wear the attachment bar. Prosthetic service was equal in groups A and B, but the total number of interventions is significantly higher in the attachment bar. Force patterns of maximum biting were similar in both bar designs, but exhibited significantly higher axial forces in the attachment bar. CONCLUSIONS: Both bar designs provide good retention and functional comfort. High stability appears to be an important factor for the patients' satisfaction and oral comfort. Rigid retention results in a higher force impact and appears to evoke the need for the retightening of occlusal screws, resulting in more maintenance service.