Cargando…
Biocompatible Materials for Orbital Wall Reconstruction—An Overview
The reconstruction of an orbit after complex craniofacial fractures can be extremely demanding. For satisfactory functional and aesthetic results, it is necessary to restore the orbital walls and the craniofacial skeleton using various types of materials. The reconstruction materials can be divided...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8954765/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35329635 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma15062183 |
_version_ | 1784676174129004544 |
---|---|
author | Vasile, Victor A. Istrate, Sinziana Iancu, Raluca C. Piticescu, Roxana M. Cursaru, Laura M. Schmetterer, Leopold Garhöfer, Gerhard Cherecheanu, Alina Popa |
author_facet | Vasile, Victor A. Istrate, Sinziana Iancu, Raluca C. Piticescu, Roxana M. Cursaru, Laura M. Schmetterer, Leopold Garhöfer, Gerhard Cherecheanu, Alina Popa |
author_sort | Vasile, Victor A. |
collection | PubMed |
description | The reconstruction of an orbit after complex craniofacial fractures can be extremely demanding. For satisfactory functional and aesthetic results, it is necessary to restore the orbital walls and the craniofacial skeleton using various types of materials. The reconstruction materials can be divided into autografts (bone or cartilage tissue) or allografts (metals, ceramics, or plastic materials, and combinations of these materials). Over time, different types of materials have been used, considering characteristics such as their stability, biocompatibility, cost, safety, and intraoperative flexibility. Although the ideal material for orbital reconstruction could not be unanimously identified, much progress has been achieved in recent years. In this article, we summarise the advantages and disadvantages of each category of reconstruction materials. We also provide an update on improvements in material properties through various modern processing techniques. Good results in reconstructive surgery of the orbit require both material and technological innovations. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8954765 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-89547652022-03-26 Biocompatible Materials for Orbital Wall Reconstruction—An Overview Vasile, Victor A. Istrate, Sinziana Iancu, Raluca C. Piticescu, Roxana M. Cursaru, Laura M. Schmetterer, Leopold Garhöfer, Gerhard Cherecheanu, Alina Popa Materials (Basel) Review The reconstruction of an orbit after complex craniofacial fractures can be extremely demanding. For satisfactory functional and aesthetic results, it is necessary to restore the orbital walls and the craniofacial skeleton using various types of materials. The reconstruction materials can be divided into autografts (bone or cartilage tissue) or allografts (metals, ceramics, or plastic materials, and combinations of these materials). Over time, different types of materials have been used, considering characteristics such as their stability, biocompatibility, cost, safety, and intraoperative flexibility. Although the ideal material for orbital reconstruction could not be unanimously identified, much progress has been achieved in recent years. In this article, we summarise the advantages and disadvantages of each category of reconstruction materials. We also provide an update on improvements in material properties through various modern processing techniques. Good results in reconstructive surgery of the orbit require both material and technological innovations. MDPI 2022-03-16 /pmc/articles/PMC8954765/ /pubmed/35329635 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma15062183 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Review Vasile, Victor A. Istrate, Sinziana Iancu, Raluca C. Piticescu, Roxana M. Cursaru, Laura M. Schmetterer, Leopold Garhöfer, Gerhard Cherecheanu, Alina Popa Biocompatible Materials for Orbital Wall Reconstruction—An Overview |
title | Biocompatible Materials for Orbital Wall Reconstruction—An Overview |
title_full | Biocompatible Materials for Orbital Wall Reconstruction—An Overview |
title_fullStr | Biocompatible Materials for Orbital Wall Reconstruction—An Overview |
title_full_unstemmed | Biocompatible Materials for Orbital Wall Reconstruction—An Overview |
title_short | Biocompatible Materials for Orbital Wall Reconstruction—An Overview |
title_sort | biocompatible materials for orbital wall reconstruction—an overview |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8954765/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35329635 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma15062183 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT vasilevictora biocompatiblematerialsfororbitalwallreconstructionanoverview AT istratesinziana biocompatiblematerialsfororbitalwallreconstructionanoverview AT iancuralucac biocompatiblematerialsfororbitalwallreconstructionanoverview AT piticescuroxanam biocompatiblematerialsfororbitalwallreconstructionanoverview AT cursarulauram biocompatiblematerialsfororbitalwallreconstructionanoverview AT schmettererleopold biocompatiblematerialsfororbitalwallreconstructionanoverview AT garhofergerhard biocompatiblematerialsfororbitalwallreconstructionanoverview AT cherecheanualinapopa biocompatiblematerialsfororbitalwallreconstructionanoverview |