Orbital Implants Insertion to Improve Ocular Prostheses Motility

dc.contributor.authorGoiato, Marcelo Coelho [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorHaddad, Marcela Filie [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorSantos, Daniela Micheline dos [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorPesqueira, Aldieris Alves [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorRibeiro, Paula do Prado
dc.contributor.authorMoreno, Amalia
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
dc.date.accessioned2013-09-30T18:29:51Z
dc.date.accessioned2014-05-20T13:43:35Z
dc.date.available2013-09-30T18:29:51Z
dc.date.available2014-05-20T13:43:35Z
dc.date.issued2010-05-01
dc.description.abstractThe objectives of this study were, through a literature review, to point the differences between orbital implants and their advantages and disadvantages, to evaluate prosthesis motility after orbital implants are inserted, and to point the implant wrapping current risks. Sixty-seven articles were reviewed. Enucleation implants can be autoplastics or alloplastics and porous (including natural and synthetic hydroxyapatite [HA]) or nonporous (silicone). Hydroxyapatite is the most related in the literature, but it has disadvantages, too, that is, all orbital implants must be wrapped. Exposure of the porous orbital implant can be repaired using different materials, which include homologous tissue, as well as autogenous graft, xenograft, and synthetic material mesh. The most used materials are HA and porous polyethylene orbital implant. The HA implant is expensive and possibly subject corals to damage, different from porous polyethylene orbital implants. Porous implants show the best prosthesis motility and a minimum rate of implants extrusion. Implant wraps can facilitate smoother entry of the implant into the orbit and allow reattachment of extraocular muscles. They also serve as a barrier between the overlying soft tissue and the rough surface of the implant, protecting implants from exposure or erosion.en
dc.description.affiliationUniv State São Paulo, UNESP, FOA, Dept Dent Mat & Prosthodont, BR-16015050 Aracatuba, SP, Brazil
dc.description.affiliationUnespUniv State São Paulo, UNESP, FOA, Dept Dent Mat & Prosthodont, BR-16015050 Aracatuba, SP, Brazil
dc.format.extent870-875
dc.identifierhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0b013e3181d80904
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Craniofacial Surgery. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, v. 21, n. 3, p. 870-875, 2010.
dc.identifier.doi10.1097/SCS.0b013e3181d80904
dc.identifier.issn1049-2275
dc.identifier.lattes9719883814872582
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0002-3800-3050
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11449/15213
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000278102200057
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherLippincott Williams & Wilkins
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Craniofacial Surgery
dc.relation.ispartofjcr0.772
dc.relation.ispartofsjr0,448
dc.rights.accessRightsAcesso restrito
dc.sourceWeb of Science
dc.subjectOrbital implantsen
dc.subjectenucleation surgeryen
dc.subjectocular prosthesisen
dc.subjectmotility coupling post (MCP)en
dc.subjecthydroxyapatite implantsen
dc.titleOrbital Implants Insertion to Improve Ocular Prostheses Motilityen
dc.typeArtigo
dcterms.licensehttp://edmgr.ovid.com/spine/accounts/copyrightTransfer.pdf
dcterms.rightsHolderLippincott Williams & Wilkins
unesp.author.lattes9719883814872582
unesp.author.lattes2336450644149867[4]
unesp.author.orcid0000-0002-3800-3050[1]
unesp.author.orcid0000-0003-3020-5253[4]
unesp.campusUniversidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp), Faculdade de Odontologia, Araçatubapt
unesp.departmentMateriais odontológicos e Prótese - FOApt

Arquivos

Licença do Pacote

Agora exibindo 1 - 2 de 2
Nenhuma Miniatura disponível
Nome:
license.txt
Tamanho:
1.71 KB
Formato:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Descrição:
Nenhuma Miniatura disponível
Nome:
license.txt
Tamanho:
1.71 KB
Formato:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Descrição: