Biomechanical Properties of the 1.5 mm Locking Compression Plate: Comparison with the 1.5 and 2.0 mm Straight Plates in Compression and Torsion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose was to compare the biomechanical properties of a 1.5 mm locking compression plate (1.5 LCP) to the 1.5 mm straight plate (1.5 P), 1.5 mm straight plate stacked (1.5 PSt) and 2.0 mm straight plate (2.0 P) in compression and torsion. We hypothesized that biomechanical properties of the 1.5 LCP would be equivalent to properties of the 1.5 P and would represent an alternative for the treatment of radial fractures in miniature breed dogs in which those plates would be used. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 1 mm fracture gap model was created with a bone surrogate stabilized with a six-hole plate. Sixteen constructs were built for each of the four plate configurations. Eight constructs from each group were tested in compression to failure and eight constructs were tested in torsion to failure. RESULTS: In compression testing, the 1.5 LCP was stiffer than the 1.5 P, and had similar stiffness than the 1.5 PSt and the 2.0 P. The load at yield of the 1.5 LCP was slightly lower than the 1.5 P. In torsion, the 1.5 LCP and 1.5 P had similar stiffness, but 1.5 LCP was slightly stronger than 1.5 P. The 1.5 PSt and 2.0 P were overall superior to the 1.5 LCP but only marginally so for the 1.5 PSt. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The 1.5 LCP can be considered biomechanically equivalent to the 1.5 P under the present experimental conditions. The use of the 1.5 LCP can be considered as an option for radial fracture repair in dogs in which a 1.5 P would have otherwise been used. The use of a locking plate to improve overall success rate, in these fractures, remains to be confirmed clinically.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".