In Trefny 2025 et al., on locking plate biomechanics, what effect did transcortical contact have on long working length constructs?
A. Reduced stiffness
B. Decreased strain and increased stiffness
C. Caused implant failure
D. Equalized strain in both groups
E. Increased strain and displacement
Answer: Decreased strain and increased stiffness
Explanation: Long working length constructs became stiffer and less strained after transcortical contact.
In Trefny 2025 et al., on locking plate biomechanics, which configuration showed higher construct stiffness in compression bending?
A. Long working length
B. Short working length
C. Both were equal
D. Neither showed measurable difference
E. Long working length with standoff
Answer: Short working length
Explanation: Short working length had significantly higher stiffness than long in compression bending.
In Trefny 2025 et al., on locking plate biomechanics, how was strain distribution measured in the plates?
A. Thermographic mapping
B. CT image subtraction
C. 3D digital image correlation
D. Digital caliper gauge
E. Fluoroscopy overlay
Answer: 3D digital image correlation
Explanation: Strain was measured via 3D digital image correlation at predefined ROIs.
In Trefny 2025 et al., on locking plate biomechanics, when did transcortical contact occur in long working length constructs?
A. After 240 N
B. Not observed in this study
C. Between 150–155 N
D. At 100 N preload
E. Only under torsion
Answer: Between 150–155 N
Explanation: Transcortical contact occurred in long constructs around 150–155 N in tension bending.
In Trefny 2025 et al., on locking plate biomechanics, why may in vitro stiffness benefits of transcortical contact not translate in vivo?
A. Causes implant corrosion
B. Too stiff for any bone healing
C. Promotes excessive callus formation
D. Causes high interfragmentary strain
E. Negatively affects blood supply
Answer: Causes high interfragmentary strain
Explanation: Transcortical contact in vivo may cause unsustainable strain and bone resorption.