ArticleJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences2021
Titanium Mesh versus Medpor Implant in Orbital Floor Reconstructions: A Comparative Study.
Article in Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Inferior Rectus Myositis After Orbital Fracture Repair With the Medpor® Implant in a 38-Year-Old Male Patient.Cureus · 2026Article
- Surgical precision and clinical outcomes of 3D preformed titanium mesh in orbital blowout fracture reconstruction: a comparative study from Thailand.Archives of craniofacial surgery · 2026Article
- Bimaxillary orthognathic surgery with mentoplasty and the use of porous polyethylene.Brazilian dental journal · 2026Article
- Biopolymeric Innovations in Ophthalmic Surgery: Enhancing Devices and Drug Delivery Systems.Polymers · 2024Review
- The Use of Functional Biomaterials in Aesthetic and Functional Restoration in Orbital Surgery.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2024Review
- Evaluation of the effect of Medpor implantation on extraocular muscle function, eye movement disturbance and diplopia in patients with orbital wall fracture.American journal of translational research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTreating orbital injuries is interesting and difficult in the facial trauma. The balance in facial proportions and also the facial esthetics are required to achieve an anatomical harmony.
objectiveTo compare the functional results of individual reconstruction of orbital floor using either titanium mesh or Medpor in terms of various factors. MATERIALS AND
methodsThere were two study groups including eight subjects with orbital floor fracture, namely A (Medpor) and B (titanium mesh). Various parameters were analyzed postoperatively at intervals of 1 week, 3 week, 6 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Comparison of the different time points with respect to pain scores in the two study groups by Wilcoxon matched pairs test was done.
resultsAll three cases of titanium mesh in orbital floor reconstruction had signs of infection, tenderness, and radiographic proof after 1 week in two subjects and 3 weeks in one patient. Pain was seen in all eight patients 1 week postoperatively.
conclusionAlthough orbital reconstruction is a technique sensitive procedure both Medpore and Titanium mesh functions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.