Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
J Craniofac Surg. 2010 May;21(3):870-5. doi: 10.1097/SCS.0b013e3181d80904.

Orbital implants insertion to improve ocular prostheses motility.

Author information

  • 1Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, University of the State of São Paulo (UNESP), São Paulo, Brazil. goiato@foa.unesp.br

Abstract

The objectives of this study were, through a literature review, to point the differences between orbital implants and their advantages and disadvantages, to evaluate prosthesis motility after orbital implants are inserted, and to point the implant wrapping current risks. Sixty-seven articles were reviewed. Enucleation implants can be autoplastics or alloplastics and porous (including natural and synthetic hydroxyapatite [HA]) or nonporous (silicone). Hydroxyapatite is the most related in the literature, but it has disadvantages, too, that is, all orbital implants must be wrapped. Exposure of the porous orbital implant can be repaired using different materials, which include homologous tissue, as well as autogenous graft, xenograft, and synthetic material mesh. The most used materials are HA and porous polyethylene orbital implant. The HA implant is expensive and possibly subject corals to damage, different from porous polyethylene orbital implants. Porous implants show the best prosthesis motility and a minimum rate of implants extrusion. Implant wraps can facilitate smoother entry of the implant into the orbit and allow reattachment of extraocular muscles. They also serve as a barrier between the overlying soft tissue and the rough surface of the implant, protecting implants from exposure or erosion.

[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
    Loading ...
    Write to the Help Desk