The aim of the present study was to compare prebent and manually-bent plates used in maxillary advancement. The prebent plates were fixed in polyurethane blocks for the linear test and aluminium blocks for the cyclic test, and the manually-bent plates were fixed in polyurethane and aluminium blocks....

The aim of the present study was to compare prebent and manually-bent plates used in maxillary advancement. The prebent plates were fixed in polyurethane blocks for the linear test and aluminium blocks for the cyclic test, and the manually-bent plates were fixed in polyurethane and aluminium blocks. The linear load tests were done using an Instron (R) 4411 mechanical testing machine and the cyclic test with an Instron (R) E3000 testing machine. The linear mechanical test showed that there was no significant difference between the plates. In the cyclic test the prebent plates reached the limit of 500000 cycles without fracturing whereas the manually-bent plate group fractured before reaching the limit of cycles (p = 0.008). The decision to use prebent or manually-bent plates during operations should be influenced by the production of the bends and their consequent brittleness. (C) 2016 The British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons

FUNDAÇÃO DE AMPARO À PESQUISA DO ESTADO DO AMAZONAS - FAPEAM

Aberto