Prosthetic Reconstruction of Orbital Defects

Vincent, Aurora G.; Kohlert, Scott; Kadakia, Sameep; Sawhney, Raja; Ducic, Yadranko

doi:10.1055/s-0039-1685479

Cited by 7 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…While the transverse diameter, medial wall, orbital floor, and circumference lengths showed no significant differences between the left and right orbits, we observed notable asymmetry in the vertical diameter, the length of the lateral wall, and the roof of the orbit. Orbital asymmetry findings can be utilized in the management of orbital fractures and ocular prosthetics design [ 19 ]. It could also play a crucial role in monitoring and designing of therapies for diseases such as thyroid eye disease and orbital tumors [ 2 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Three-Dimensional (3D) Analysis of Orbital Morphometry in Healthy Anatolian Adults: Sex, Side Discrepancies, and Clinical Relevance

Erdem,

Tekeli,

Cevik

et al. 2023

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and objectiveThe complex structural integrity of the orbit is crucial for visual functions. Three-dimensional (3D) reconstructions from radiological images have revolutionized anatomical understanding, eliminating the limitations of two-dimensional (2D) imaging and offering intricate spatial details for complex structures. The aim of this study was to analyze the detailed morphometry of the orbit in healthy Anatolian adults, considering sex, side discrepancies, and clinical relevance using 3D models reconstructed from multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) images. Materials and methodsFifty-six (44.44%) males and 70 (55.56%) females (total: 126, mean age: 48.62) MDCT images were randomly selected and 3D skull models were reconstructed using 3D Slicer software. Measurements were conducted in millimeters (mm) for transverse and vertical diameters, circumference of the orbital opening, orbital wall lengths, as well as intraorbital and extraorbital distances. ResultsThe method of measurements showed high reproducibility of results. The mean values for transverse and vertical diameters, circumference of the orbital opening, medial and lateral wall lengths, roof and floor lengths, and intraorbital and extraorbital distances were 40.23±2.12 mm (p<0.001), 34.94±2.16 mm (p=0.365), 44.74 ±3.02 mm (p<0.001), 46.30±2.69 mm (p<0.001), 51.26±2.91 mm (p<0.001), 49.01±3.22 mm (p<0.001), 126.10±5.71 mm (p<0.001), 19.63±2.35 mm (p=0.026), and 94.09±4.84 mm (p<0.001), respectively. ConclusionThe study's high measurement reproducibility contributes significantly to the existing literature and clinical practice. These findings offer specific insights into Anatolian orbital morphometry, aiding in surgical planning, implant placement, and diagnostic assessments. The precise measurement values serve as a reliable reference for clinicians, facilitating the identification of normal and abnormal orbital anatomy and enhancing patient care. We believe this study provides valuable data for craniofacial and ophthalmological research, benefiting both clinical practice and future research endeavors in these fields.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The mean age was 48.62±17.15 years (male: 47.05±18.30; female: 49.87±16. 19) with a range of 18 to 85 years. No statistically significant differences were observed in the age distribution between males and females (p=0.365).…”

Section: Parameters Icc (95% Ci) Pmentioning

confidence: 99%

Three-Dimensional (3D) Analysis of Orbital Morphometry in Healthy Anatolian Adults: Sex, Side Discrepancies, and Clinical Relevance

Erdem,

Tekeli,

Cevik

et al. 2023

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our work's main strengths are that we first considered eyelids removal as an independent reconstructive factor (type A and B), because it inevitably affects the following ocular or orbit prosthesis rehabilitation plan. 59,60 We highlighted the difference between OE type I and II, which is linked mainly to the physiopathology of the primary tumor, where the TMF represents the reconstructive workhorse combined with skin graft and fat grafting (three layers technique).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Orbital Extenteration Defects: Ablative and Reconstructive Flowchart Proposal

Mannelli

Comini

Marzola

et al. 2022

Journal of Craniofacial Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Orbital exenteration is a radical and disfiguring operation. It is still under debate the absence of correlation between the term describing the resulting orbital defect and the type of reconstruction. Authors' goal was to propose a consistent and uniform terminology for Orbital Exenteration surgery in anticipation of patients' tailored management. Twenty-five patients who underwent orbital exenteration between 2014 and 2020 were reviewed. A parallel comprehensive literature review was carried on. Five different types of orbital exenteration where outlined. Multiple reconstructive procedures were enclosed. An algorithm for orbital reconstruction was proposed based on anatomic boundaries restoration. Eyelid removal was first considered as an independent reconstructive factor, and both orbital roof and floor were indicated as independent reconstructive goals, which deserve different defect classification. In our opinion, this algorithm could be a useful tool for patient counseling and treatment selection, which might allow a more tailored patient care protocol. Level of Evidence Level III.

show abstract

“…Adhesive-retained restorations have various disadvantages such as deterioration of prosthetic margin, allergy of various patients due to adhesive, and application of adhesive and removal for multiple times. [ 3 ] Implant-supported restorations have gained huge importance in recent times to act as a retentive source in maxillofacial defects. The first placement of implants for maxillofacial prosthesis was done in 1977 for a bone-anchored hearing aid and a bone-anchored auricular prosthesis in 1979, at the University of Gothenburg.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fabrication of orbital prosthesis by two different methods in patients with post-COVID-19 rhino-orbital maxillary mucormycosis: A case series

Bhattacharjee,

Srivastava,

Bansal

et al. 2024

National Journal of Maxillofacial Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Neoplasms, congenital disorders, fungal infections, and traumatic injuries are the predominant causes of orbital defects. Various retentive mechanisms such as application of adhesive, utilization of mechanical undercuts, and implant-supported attachments are generally used in the maxillofacial prosthesis. In the orbital region, the result of magnet-retained attachments is favorable compared with other mechanisms. Different advantages of the magnet-retained prosthesis are less manual dexterity needed during insertion or removal and better maintenance of hygiene. The skin–implant interface and thick tissues in the maxillofacial region are the critically important points that should be given importance during the planning and placement of implants. Ideally, implant sites for orbital prosthesis are the lateral, infra-, and supraorbital rims of the orbital region. The following case series describes two different methods to rehabilitate patients with an exenterated eye due to mucormycosis by individually designed implant with magnetic attachment and mechanical undercut-retained orbital prosthesis.

show abstract

Prosthetic Reconstruction of Orbital Defects

Cited by 7 publications

References 16 publications

Three-Dimensional (3D) Analysis of Orbital Morphometry in Healthy Anatolian Adults: Sex, Side Discrepancies, and Clinical Relevance

Three-Dimensional (3D) Analysis of Orbital Morphometry in Healthy Anatolian Adults: Sex, Side Discrepancies, and Clinical Relevance

Orbital Extenteration Defects: Ablative and Reconstructive Flowchart Proposal

Fabrication of orbital prosthesis by two different methods in patients with post-COVID-19 rhino-orbital maxillary mucormycosis: A case series

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About