Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-nf276 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-17T18:58:57.370Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Biomechanical strength of glass ionomer cement in incudostapedial rebridging

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2015

E A Server ,
Z Alkan ,
O Yigit ,
E Acioglu ,
A Bekem ,
A Unal  and
S M Akkin
E A Server*
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Istanbul Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
Z Alkan
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Istanbul Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
O Yigit
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Istanbul Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
E Acioglu
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Istanbul Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
A Bekem
Affiliation:
Department of Metallurgy and Material Engineering, Faculty of Chemical-Metallurgy, Yildiz Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey
A Unal
Affiliation:
Department of Metallurgy and Material Engineering, Faculty of Chemical-Metallurgy, Yildiz Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey
S M Akkin
Affiliation:
Department of Anatomy, SANKO Medical School, Gaziantep, Turkey Department of Anatomy, Cerrahpasa Medical Faculty, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey
*
Address for correspondence: Dr Ela Araz Server, Tahtakale Mah. Ispartakule Evleri T:29 sok., Agaoglu Sitesi C Blok Daire: 30, Avcılar, İstanbul 34325, Turkey E-mail: serverela@hotmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

To study the biomechanical properties of glass ionomer cement used for incudostapedial rebridging.

Methods:

Two groups were established based on the size of the gap between the incus and stapes (1.0 mm in group 1 and 2.0 mm in group 2). Glass ionomer cement was applied to the gaps, and compression tests were performed. Maximum force was measured at the fracture point, and was divided by the cross-sectional area to obtain the maximum compressive strength.

Results:

No significant difference was found in the maximum force for the two groups (p = 0.312). The glass ionomer cement diameter was significantly higher in group 2 than in group 1 (p = 0.006). The maximum compressive strength was significantly higher in group 1 than in group 2 (p = 0.042).

Conclusion:

The fragility of bone cement used in this study was 25.5 per cent higher for a 2 mm gap than for a 1 mm gap. We speculate that the use of bone cement may be safer for the repair of smaller incudostapedial defects.

Keywords

Bone CementsIncusStapes

Information

Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 129 , Issue 2 , February 2015 , pp. 148 - 154
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

This study was presented as a poster at the Joint Meeting of Anatomical Societies, 19–22 May 2011, Bursa, Turkey.

References

1Goebel, JA, Jacob, A. Use of Mimix hydroxyapatite bone cement for difficult ossicular reconstruction. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2005;132:727–34Google Scholar
2Rondini-Gilli, E, Grayeli, AB, Borges Crosara, PF, El Garem, H, Mosnier, I, Bouccara, D et al. Ossiculoplasty with total hydroxylapatite prostheses anatomical and functional outcomes. Otol Neurotol 2003;24:543–7Google Scholar
3Stea, S, Cervellati, M, Cavedagna, D, Savarino, L, Cenni, E, Pizzoferrato, A. Detection of mutagenic potention of some glass-ionomer cements through Ames testing. J Mater Sci Mater Med 1998;9:141–6Google Scholar
4Geyer, G, Helms, J. Reconstruction of the posterior auditory canal wall down and obliteration of the mastoid cavity using glass ionomer cement. In: Yanagihara, N, Suzuki, JL, eds. Transplant and Implants in Otology, 2nd edn. Amsterdam: Kugler, 1992;165–70Google Scholar
5Muller, J, Geyer, G, Helms, J. Restoration of sound transmission in the middle ear by reconstruction of the ossicular chain in its physiologic position. Results of incus reconstruction with ionomer cement [in German]. Laryngorhinootologie 1994;73:160–3Google Scholar
6Mikaelian, DO. Perichondrial-cartilage island graft in one stage tympano-ossiculoplasty. Laryngoscope 1986;96:237–9Google Scholar
7Brask, T. Reconstruction of the ossicular chain in the middle ear with glass ionomer cement. Laryngoscope 1999;109:573–6Google Scholar
8Babu, S, Seidman, MD. Ossicular reconstruction using bone cement. Otol Neurotol 2004;25:98–101Google Scholar
9Elsheikh, MN, Elsherief, H, Elsherief, S. Use of hydroxyapatite bone cement for rebridging the incus. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2006;132:196–9Google Scholar
10Feghali, JG, Barrs, DS, Beatty, CW, Chen, DA, Green, JD Jr, Krueger, WW et al. Bone cement reconstruction of the ossicular chain: a preliminary report. Laryngoscope 1998;108:829–36Google Scholar
11McCaghren, RA, Retief, DH, Bradley, EL, Denys, FR. Shear bond strength of light-cured glass ionomer to enamel and dentin. J Dent Res 1990;69:40–5Google Scholar
12Bayazit, Y, Ozer, E, Kanlikama, M, Durmaz, T, Yilmaz, M. Bone cement ossiculoplasty: incus to stapes versus malleus to stapes cement bridge. Otol Neurotol 2005;26:364–7Google Scholar
13Smith, DC. Adhesives and sealants. In: Ratner, BD, Hoffman, AS, Schoen, FJ, Lemons, JE, eds. Biomaterials Science: An Introduction to Materials in Medicine, 2nd edn. London: Elsevier, 2004;573–80Google Scholar
14Nakamura, T. Bioceramics in orthopedic surgery. In: Kokubo, T, Nakamura, T, Miyaji, F, eds. Bioceramics. Oxford: Elsevier Science/Pergamon, 1996;31–2Google Scholar
15Callister, WD. Failure. In: Callister, WD, ed. Materials Science and Engineering: An Introduction, 7th edn. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2007;208–14Google Scholar
16Skinner, M, Honrado, C, Prasad, M, Nelson, HK, Selesnick, SH. The incudostapedial joint angle: implications for stapes surgery prosthesis selection and crimping. Laryngoscope 2003;113:647–53Google Scholar