ReviewJournal of functional biomaterials2024
The Use of Functional Biomaterials in Aesthetic and Functional Restoration in Orbital Surgery.
Review in Journal of functional biomaterials, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of Reconstructive Materials in Paediatric Orbital Fractures: A Systematic Review.Craniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction · 2026Review
- Effect of Rare-Earth Element Microdoping on Ti-6Al-7Nb Alloys for Biomedical Applications: Materials Characterization and In Vivo Biocompatibility Tests.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Biomaterials in pancreatic surgery: progress and challenges in preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative care.Theranostics · 2026Review
- Orbital Implant Surgery with Costal Cartilage Graft Is Associated with Better Symmetry and Improved Cosmetic Appearance.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Application of Silicone in Ophthalmology: A Review.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The integration of functional biomaterials in oculoplastic and orbital surgery is a pivotal area where material science and clinical practice converge. This review, encompassing primary research from 2015 to 2023, delves into the use of biomaterials in two key areas: the reconstruction of orbital floor fractures and the development of implants and prostheses for anophthalmic sockets post-eye removal. The discussion begins with an analysis of orbital floor injuries, including their pathophysiology and treatment modalities. It is noted that titanium mesh remains the gold standard for orbital floor repair due to its effectiveness. The review then examines the array of materials used for orbital implants and prostheses, highlighting the dependence on surgeon preference and experience, as there are currently no definitive guidelines. While recent innovations in biomaterials show promise, the review underscores the need for more clinical data before these new materials can be widely adopted in clinical settings. The review advocates for an interdisciplinary approach in orbital surgery, emphasizing patient-centered care and the potential of biomaterials to significantly enhance patient outcomes.
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.