Fabrication and morphological characterization of glass‐ceramic orbital implants

Abstract

Porous glass-ceramics were produced by sponge replication for possible use as orbital implant materials, characterized from a morphological viewpoint, and compared to commonly used devices. Favorable characteristics of these new materials for ocular applications include total porosity above 50 vol.%, presence of open and large macropores (>200 lm) that could potentially allow fibrovascular tissue ingrowth, and submicronic surface roughness which is significantly lower than that of commercial "gold standard" alumina implants. The last feature is key to limit the risk of postoperative conjunctival abrasion and to achieve clinical success. Therefore, these glass-ceramic porous materials are highly promising alternatives to existing ceramic orbital implants.

Bioactive glass and glass‐ceramic orbital implants

“…69 Very interestingly, the surface roughness (R a ) of these SCNA-based implants measured by contact profilometry was 2.5 times lower than that of porous alumina (300 vs 750 nm), which to date is considered as the "gold standard" option by many ophthalmic surgeons. 69 Very interestingly, the surface roughness (R a ) of these SCNA-based implants measured by contact profilometry was 2.5 times lower than that of porous alumina (300 vs 750 nm), which to date is considered as the "gold standard" option by many ophthalmic surgeons.…”

“…Other silicate glass-ceramic porous implants of similar composition (57SiO 2 -34CaO-6Na 2 O-3Al 2 O 3 mol% [SCNA]) were also fabricated by foam replication. 69 Very interestingly, the surface roughness (R a ) of these SCNA-based implants measured by contact profilometry was 2.5 times lower than that of porous alumina (300 vs 750 nm), which to date is considered as the "gold standard" option by many ophthalmic surgeons. Atomic force microscopy carried out on the same samples confirmed these early results and, furthermore, suggested that SCNA-derived glass-ceramic implants have comparable surface roughness to porous polyethylene, too.…”

“…70 A similar trend of the ranges of surface roughness was also found by examining foam-replicated glass-ceramic orbital implants based on a six-oxide glass composition (45S iO 2 -26CaO-15Na 2 O-7MgO-4K 2 O-3P 2 O 5 mol% [CEL2]). 69 From a clinical viewpoint, this is a potentially very important achievement since lower the surface roughness, lower the risk of conjunctival abrasion in vivo, and better the postoperative performance of a given implant.…”

Apatite‐forming ability, cytocompatibility, and mechanical properties enhancement of poly methyl methacrylate‐based bone cements by incorporating of baghdadite nanoparticles

“…Nowadays, polymer blends have attracted considerable attention because of their ability to amalgamate the characteristics of the two components and overcome the drawbacks of individual polymers. Moreover, several studies [10][11][12] verified that the addition of glass-ceramics containing Si, Ca, and Mg and silicate-based ceramic to the PMMA bone cement increases their bioactivity owing to the release of the Mg, Si, and Ca ions in the surrounding environment. Due to the aforementioned advantages, PCL is used for soft-tissue and hard-tissue applications.…”

“…For instance, Gil et al 9 showed that the bioactivity of PMMA bone cement increased after the addition of hydroxyapatite. Moreover, several studies [10][11][12] verified that the addition of glass-ceramics containing Si, Ca, and Mg and silicate-based ceramic to the PMMA bone cement increases their bioactivity owing to the release of the Mg, Si, and Ca ions in the surrounding environment. [13][14][15] In this respect, Chen et al 16 demonstrated that the addition of 10 to 50 wt.% silicate-based ceramic (akermanite; Ca 2 MgSi 2 O 7 ) to PMMA resulted in escalating apatite formation ability and mechanical properties of pure PMMA.…”