Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015 Jan-Mar;8(1):41-3.

Biomaterials for orbital fractures repair

M Totir  1 , R Ciuluvica  2 , I Dinu  1 , I Careba  1 , S Gradinaru  3
Affiliations

Biomaterials for orbital fractures repair

M Totir et al. J Med Life. 2015 Jan-Mar.

Erratum in

  • Errata.
    [No authors listed] [No authors listed] J Med Life. 2015;8 Spec Issue(Spec Issue):124. J Med Life. 2015. PMID: 26361521 Free PMC article. No abstract available.

Abstract

The unique and complex anatomy of the orbit requires significant contouring of the implants to restore the proper anatomy. Fractures of the orbital region have an incidence of 10-25% from the total facial fractures and the most common age group was the third decade of life. The majority of cases required reconstruction of the orbital floor to support the globe position and restore the shape of the orbit. The reason for this was that the bony walls were comminuted and/ or bone fragments were missing. Therefore, the reconstruction of the missing bone was important rather than reducing the bone fragments. This could be accomplished by using various materials. There is hardly any anatomic region in the human body that is so controversial in terms of appropriate material used for fracture repair: non resorbable versus resorbable, autogenous/ allogeneic/ xenogenous versus alloplastic material, non-prebent versus preformed (anatomical) plates, standard versus custom-made plates, nonporous versus porous material, non-coated versus coated plates. Thus, the importance of the material used for reconstruction becomes more challenging for the ophthalmologist and the oral and maxillofacial surgeon.

Keywords: bone graft; orbital fracture; reconstruction; titanium mesh.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Erdmann D, Follmar KE, Debruijn M, et al. A retrospective analysis of facial fracture etiologies. Ann Plast Surg. 2008;60:398–403. - PubMed
    1. Hwang K, You SH. Analysis of facial bone fractures: An 11-year study of 2,094 patients. Indian J Plast Surg. 2010 Jan;43(1):42–48. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Scherer M, Sullivan WG, Smith DJ Jr, Phillips LG, Robson MC. An analysis of 1,423 facial fractures in 788 patients at an urban trauma center. J Trauma. 1989;29:388–390. - PubMed
    1. Exadaktylos AK, Sclabas GM, Smolka K, et al. The value of computed tomographic scanning in the diagnosis and management of orbital fractures associated with head trauma: a prospective, consecutive study at a level I trauma center. J Trauma. 2005;58:336–341. - PubMed
    1. Dobrovăţ B, Popescu R, Nemtoi A, Ladunca O, Haba D. Orbital trauma: from anatomy to imaging patterns – a pictorial review. Romanian Neurosurgery. 2011;XVIII, 4:525–532.

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources