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
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2023 Dec 18;23(1):1012.
doi: 10.1186/s12903-023-03746-w.

Microbiological evaluation of conjunctival anopthalmic flora after using digital 3D-printed ocular prosthesis compared to conventional one: a randomized clinical trial

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Microbiological evaluation of conjunctival anopthalmic flora after using digital 3D-printed ocular prosthesis compared to conventional one: a randomized clinical trial

Yassmin A Tahmawy et al. BMC Oral Health. .

Abstract

Background: This study aims to assess the influence of using 3D-printed acrylic resin versus conventional Poly-methyl methacrylate (PMMA) for fabricating ocular prostheses on the biofilm and microbial flora of anophthalmic socket.

Methods: A randomized controlled trial was designed as a parallel group study. Participants were allocated randomly into two groups: the control group, which received conventionally fabricated ocular prostheses (CG, n = 11), and the test group, which received digitally 3D-printed ocular prostheses (DG, n = 11). Microbiological analysis was conducted before prosthesis insertion and three months after using the ocular prosthesis. Swab samples were inoculated on blood agar, MacConkey's agar, and Sabouraud's dextrose agar (SDA) for isolating Gram-positive, Gram-negative, and fungal organisms, respectively. Subsequently, the plates were incubated at 37 degrees Celsius for 48 h. Additionally, a validated questionnaire was used for subjective clinical evaluation, including parameters such as comfort level, socket discharge, lacrimation, and frequency of lubrication for each ocular prosthesis patient in both groups.

Results: Test group (DG, n = 11) exhibited a positive, though statistically insignificant, difference (p > 0.001) in microbial growth when compared to the control group (CG, n = 11). A statistically significant difference was observed in comfort levels between the two groups, with more comfort level within group II (test group) patients. While parameters such as discharge amount, discharge location, lacrimation and lubrication frequency displayed statistically insignificant differences between the two groups, all parameters showed improved results after three months of prosthesis use.

Conclusions: The choice of ocular prosthesis fabrication technique did not yield a statistically significant difference in anophthalmic flora. However, the 3D-printed acrylic resin, as an artificial eye material, displayed potential advantages in reducing the colonization of opportunistic pathogens. All subjective clinical evaluation parameters exhibited enhanced outcomes after three months of prosthesis use, emphasizing the need for an adaptation period during which patients complains are alleviated. In comparison with PMMA, 3D-printed acrylic resin showcased a certain degree of anti-colonization ability against pathogenic bacteria, along with a significant level of patient comfort, suggesting its potential as a promising material for ocular prostheses.

Trial registration: This parallel double-blinded RCT has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with identification number: NCT05584865, 18/10/2022.

Keywords: 3D printing; Anophthalmic flora; Computer aided; Ocular prosthesis.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow diagram of study design following CONSORT guidelines
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Flasked ocular prosthesis fabricated from PMMA
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
3D-printed ocular prosthesis using medical grade 3D-printed acrylic resin (Preform; Formlabs, USA)
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Comfort level
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Discharge rating
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Discharge location
Fig. 7
Fig. 7
Lacrimation
Fig. 8
Fig. 8
Lubrication frequency
Fig. 9
Fig. 9
Microbial growth in the two study groups

References

    1. Goiato MC, Bannwart LC, Haddad MF, Dos Santos DM, Pesqueira AA, Miyahara GI. Fabrication techniques for ocular prostheses–an overview. Orbit. 2014;33:229–33. doi: 10.3109/01676830.2014.881395. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Campos MS, Campos D, Rehder JR, Lee MB, O’Brien T, McDonnell PJ. Anaerobic flora of the conjunctival sac in patients with AIDS and with anophthalmia compared with normal eyes. Acta Ophthalmol. 1994;72:241–5. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-3768.1994.tb05023.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Christensen JN, Fahmy JA. The bacterial flora of the conjunctival anophthalmic socket in glass prosthesis-carriers. Acta Ophthalmol. 1974;52:801–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-3768.1974.tb01116.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Miller SD, Smith RE, Dippe DW, Lacey DR, Abel M. Bacteriology of the socket in patients with prostheses. Can J Ophthalmol. 1976;11:126–9. - PubMed
    1. Patillon JC, Rousse C, Gauthier C, Guyot J, Barbier A, Royer J, et al. Bacterial flora of the conjunctiva in enucleated subjects. Bull Soc Ophtalmol Fr. 1978;78:781–7. - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data