Biomechanical comparison of static and dynamic cervical plates in terms of the bone fusion, tissue degeneration, and implant behavior

Table 1 Predicted kinematic and mechanical differences

	ACDSP		DCP-R		ACDSP		DCP-R
	C3-4				C6-7
Flexion
Disc angle	18.1%	− 5.5%	13.9%	− 9.7%	33.9%	− 5.7%	30.2%	− 9.4%
Disc stress	25.0%	− 4.8%	16.7%	− 13.1%	6.2%	− 6.3%	6.3%	− 6.2%
Facet force	17.0%	− 9.4%	14.2%	− 12.2%	19.7%	− 7.1%	17.0%	− 9.8%
Extension
Disc angle	19.0%	− 14.3%	11.9%	− 21.4%	14.0%	− 12.0%	8.0%	− 18.0%
Disc stress	22.2%	− 8.2%	22.2%	− 8.2%	9.1%	− 18.2%	9.1%	− 18.2%
Facet force	19.7%	− 2.4%	7.7%	− 14.4%	8.5%	− 11.4%	5.9%	− 13.8%
Bending
Disc angle	13.7%	− 8.2%	9.6%	− 12.3%	35.5%	− 12.9%	29.0%	− 19.4%
Disc stress	15.4%	0.0%	7.7%	− 7.7%	6.7%	− 6.6%	6.7%	− 6.6%
Facet force	8.3%	− 4.0%	4.5%	− 7.8%	6.1%	− 3.6%	3.8%	− 5.9%
Rotation
Disc angle	25.6%	− 4.6%	18.6%	− 11.6%	24.4%	− 8.9%	17.8%	− 15.5%
Disc stress	12.5%	− 12.5%	10.1%	− 14.9%	11.1%	− 11.1%	11.1%	− 11.1%
Facet force	13.8%	− 4.2%	11.5%	− 6.5%	12.2%	− 4.1%	10.2%	− 6.1%

The comparison between SCP and two DCPs using SCP as a benchmark showed that DCP-R had a higher decrease in disc angle, disc stress and facet force than ACDSP

ISSN: 1749-799X