Brace Simulation for Patients with Scoliosis: Biomechanical Comparison with Three Different Polymeric Materials

Main Article Content

Majid Mafi, PhD
Amir Mahdi Kargar Niyaval, MSc
Shaghayegh khanmohammadi, MSc

Abstract










OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this research is to investigate injuries to the spinal cord and scoliosis and to review the most recent and common therapies. In particular, this study has been designed to simulate and compare braces composed of three different materials to determine the optimal material.


MATERIAL AND METHODS: Solidworks and Abaqus softwares have been used in this study. We simulated and redesigned a new type of brace (ART Brace) and compared it in three different materials (three types of polymer: Nylon 66 with 50% Mica, Nylon 66 with 30% Carbon and Nylon 6 with 30% Carbon).


RESULT: We examined stress and strain and the rate of displacement of the brace, and the best material was selected and evaluated for the desired brace. In these studies, Nylon 66 with 30% carbon has the highest stress and Nylon 66 with 50% Mica has the highest strain and displacement, while Nylon 66 with 50% Mica has the lowest stress and Nylon 66 with 30% carbon has the lowest strain and displacement.


CONCLUSION: According to conducted surveys on three different materials we concluded that the optimal brace should be made of Nylon 66 with 50% Mica as this performed better than the two other materials (Nylon 66 with 30% carbon). This is because the rate of stress is lower after loading.










Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
1.
Mafi M, Niyaval AMK, khanmohammadi S. Brace Simulation for Patients with Scoliosis: Biomechanical Comparison with Three Different Polymeric Materials. BKK Med J [Internet]. 2019Sep.20 [cited 2020Jul.15];15(2):161. Available from: https://he02.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/bkkmedj/article/view/222822
Section
Original Article

References

1. Roaf R. The basic anatomy of scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1966;48(4):786-92. 
2. Dunn J, Henrikson NB, Morrison CC, et al. Screening for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA 2018;319(2):173-87.
3. Penha PJ, Penha NL, De Carvalho BK, et al. Posture alignment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: photogrammetry in scoliosis school screening. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2017;40(6):441- 51.
4. Piantoni L, Noel MA, Wilson IA, et al. Surgical treatment with pedicle screws of scoliosis associated with osteogenesis imperfecta in children. Spine deform 2017;5(5):360-5.
5. Assi KC, Grenier S, Parent S, et al. A physically based trunk soft tissue modeling for scoliosis surgery planning systems. Comput Med Imaging Graph 2015;40:217-28.
6. Odent T, Ilharreborde B, Miladi L, et al. Scoliosis Study Group. Fusionless surgery in early-onset scoliosis. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2015;101(6):S281-8.
7. Holewijn RM, de Kleuver M, van der Veen AJ, et al. A novel spinal implant for fusionless scoliosis correction: a biomechanical analysis of the motion preserving properties of a posterior periapical concave distraction device. Global Spine J 2017;7(5):400-9.
8. Weiss HR. Spinal deformities rehabilitation-state of the art review. Scoliosis 2010;5:28.
9. Gur G, Dilek B, Ayhan C, et al. Effect of a spinal brace on postural control in different sensory conditions in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a preliminary analysis. Gait posture 2015;41(1):93-9.
10. Misterska E, Głowacki J, Głowacki M, et al. Long-term effects of conservative treatment of Milwaukee brace on body image and mental health of patients with idiopathic scoliosis. PloS One 2018;13(2):e0193447.
11. Ran B, Fan Y, Yuan F, et al. Pulmonary function changes and its influencing factors after preoperative brace treatment in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: A retrospective case–control study. Medicine (Baltimore) 2016;95(43):e5088.
12. Desbiens-Blais F, Clin J, Parent S, et al. New brace design combining CAD/CAM and biomechanical simulation for the treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2012;27(10):999-1005.
13. Sattout A, Clin J, Cobetto N, et al. Biomechanical assessment of providence nighttime brace for the treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine Deform 2016;4(4):253-60.
14. Berteau JP, Pithioux M, Mesure S, et al. Beyond the classic correction system: a numerical nonrigid approach to the scoliosis brace. Spine J 2011;11(5):424-31.
15. de Mauroy JC, Lecante C, Barral F, et al. Prospective study and new concepts based on scoliosis detorsion of the first 225 early in-brace radiological results with the new Lyon brace: ARTbrace. Scoliosis 2014 Dec;9(1):19.
16. Tailor DK, Lang MF, Hruska PS, et al. Inventors; Saint-Gobain Technical Fabrics Canada Ltd, assignee. Thermoplastic orthopedic brace and method of manufacturing same. United States patent US 5,624,386. 1997 Apr 29. 
17. Deopura BL, Mukherjee AK. Nylon 6 and nylon 66 fibres. Manufactured Fibre Technology, Springer, Dordrecht. 1997:318-59.
18. Palmer RJ, Updated by Staff. Polyamides, plastics. 2000. (Accessed June 20, 2019, at https://doi.org/10.1002/047123 8961.1612011916011213.a01)
19. Clin J, Aubin CÉ, Parent S, et al. Biomechanical modeling of brace treatment of scoliosis: effects of gravitational loads. Med Biol Eng Comput 2011;49(7):743-53.