Crown preservation of the mandibular first molar tooth impacts the strength and stiffness of three non-invasive jaw fracture repair constructs in dogs

Charles Lothamer, Christopher John Snyder, Sarah Duenwald-Kuehl, John Kloke, Ronald P. McCabe, Ray Vanderby

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

5 Scopus citations


Repairing mandibular body fractures presents unique challenges not encountered when repairing long bones. Large tooth roots and the presence of the inferior alveolar neurovascular bundle limit safe placement for many types of orthopedic implants. Use of non-invasive fracture repair methods have increasingly become popular and have proven safe and effective at achieving bone healing. Non-invasive fixation constructs have not been tested in dogs using cantilevered bending. Furthermore, non-invasive fracture repair constructs have not been tested at the location of a common fracture location - the mandibular first molar tooth (M1). The objectives of this study were to test the strength and stiffness of three non-invasive mandibular fracture repair constructs and to characterize the impact that tooth crown preservation has on fixation strength for fractures occurring at the M1 location. Specimens were assigned to three treatment groups: (1) composite only, (2) interdental wiring and composite (IWC), and (3) transmucosal fixation screw and composite. For each pair of mandibles, one mandible received crown amputation at the alveolar margin to simulate the effect of crown loss on fixation strength and stiffness. Regardless of the status of crown presence, IWC demonstrated the greatest bending stiffness and load to failure. With the crown removed, IWC was significantly stronger compared to other treatments. All fixation constructs were stiffer when the tooth crown was preserved. In fractures at this location, retaining the tooth crown of M1 significantly increases stiffness of interdental wiring with composite and transmucosal screw with composite constructs. If the crown of M1 was removed, IWC was significantly stronger than the other two forms of fixation.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number18
JournalFrontiers in Veterinary Science
Issue numberJUL
StatePublished - Jul 17 2015
Externally publishedYes

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
The authors would like to thank Mark Markel, Brett Nemke, and the Comparative Orthopedic Research Laboratory at the University of Wisconsin-Madison for the acquisition and preparation of specimens, and Adam Biedrzycki for assistance with data analysis. KLS Martin and DePuy Synthes made donations in support of equipment. Funding: this project was made possible by a Companion Animal Grant, University of Wisconsin-Madison, School of Veterinary Medicine. The project described was supported by the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) program, through the NIH National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), grant UL1TR000427. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH.

Publisher Copyright:
© 2015 Lothamer, Snyder, Duenwald-Kuehl, Kloke, McCabe and Vanderby.


  • Composite
  • Dogs
  • Fracture
  • Mandible
  • Non-invasive
  • Repair
  • Stiffness
  • Strength


Dive into the research topics of 'Crown preservation of the mandibular first molar tooth impacts the strength and stiffness of three non-invasive jaw fracture repair constructs in dogs'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this