Fabrication and morphological characterization of glass‐ceramic orbital implants
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract Porous glass‐ceramics were produced by sponge replication for possible use as orbital implant materials, characterized from a morphological viewpoint, and compared to commonly used devices. Favorable characteristics of these new materials for ocular applications include total porosity above 50 vol.%, presence of open and large macropores (>200 μm) that could potentially allow fibrovascular tissue ingrowth, and submicronic surface roughness which is significantly lower than that of commercial “gold standard” alumina implants. The last feature is key to limit the risk of postoperative conjunctival abrasion and to achieve clinical success. Therefore, these glass‐ceramic porous materials are highly promising alternatives to existing ceramic orbital implants.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Ocular Disorders and Treatments · Facial Trauma and Fracture Management · Ocular Surface and Contact Lens
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Institute of Materials Physics and Engineering Department of Applied Science and Technology Politecnico di Torino Torino Italy
Imamoter National Research Council Torino Italy
References (39)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1111/j.1151-2916.1991.tb07132.x10.1111/j.1151-2916.1991.tb07132.x ↗
2. 10.1111/j.1744-7402.2005.02020.x10.1111/j.1744-7402.2005.02020.x ↗
3. 10.1111/ijac.1267710.1111/ijac.12677 ↗
4. 10.1016/j.actbio.2014.11.00410.1016/j.actbio.2014.11.004 ↗
5. 10.1007/978-3-319-12460-5_6010.1007/978-3-319-12460-5_60 ↗
6. 10.1016/S0039-6257(99)00112-510.1016/S0039-6257(99)00112-5 ↗
7. 10.1016/j.survophthal.2006.12.00710.1016/j.survophthal.2006.12.007 ↗
8. 10.1097/01.iop.0000249429.02757.6b10.1097/01.iop.0000249429.02757.6b ↗
9. 10.1076/otoo.4.1.36.849310.1076/otoo.4.1.36.8493 ↗
10. 10.3109/01676830.2011.64880010.3109/01676830.2011.648800 ↗
11. 10.1097/01.IOP.0000117341.28846.7F10.1097/01.IOP.0000117341.28846.7F ↗
12. 10.1097/00002341-200009000-0000910.1097/00002341-200009000-00009 ↗
13. Scanning electron microscopic examination of porous orbital implants
14. 10.1002/sca.2023510.1002/sca.20235 ↗
15. 10.1371/journal.pone.012129210.1371/journal.pone.0121292 ↗
16. 10.1016/j.msec.2016.08.00310.1016/j.msec.2016.08.003 ↗
17. 10.1002/jbm.a.3526010.1002/jbm.a.35260 ↗
18. 10.3109/01676830.2011.64879810.3109/01676830.2011.648798 ↗
19. Biocompatibility analysis of Bioglass® 45S5 and Biosilicate® cone in rabbit eviscerated cavity
20. 10.1016/j.jnoncrysol.2015.03.02210.1016/j.jnoncrysol.2015.03.022 ↗
21. 10.1097/01.iop.0000192646.26002.a410.1097/01.iop.0000192646.26002.a4 ↗
22. 10.1097/IOP.0b013e318158ec8e10.1097/IOP.0b013e318158ec8e ↗
23. 10.1089/ten.teb.2009.041610.1089/ten.teb.2009.0416 ↗
24. 10.1016/0142-9612(91)90194-F10.1016/0142-9612(91)90194-F ↗
25. 10.1016/j.matlet.2012.01.09810.1016/j.matlet.2012.01.098 ↗
26. 10.1007/BF0114552010.1007/BF01145520 ↗
27. 10.1007/BF0029856010.1007/BF00298560 ↗
28. 10.1016/j.actamat.2007.01.02910.1016/j.actamat.2007.01.029 ↗
29. 10.1039/b616539g10.1039/b616539g ↗
30. 10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2009.06.03510.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2009.06.035 ↗
31. 10.1111/ijag.1225210.1111/ijag.12252 ↗
32. 10.1002/jbm.b.3045610.1002/jbm.b.30456 ↗
33. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2009.05.07710.1016/j.biomaterials.2009.05.077 ↗
34. 10.1016/S0955-2219(99)00024-210.1016/S0955-2219(99)00024-2 ↗
35. 10.1002/jbm.125010.1002/jbm.1250 ↗
36. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.07.01710.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.07.017 ↗
37. Clinico‐pathologic study of 70 enucleations
38. 10.1097/01.iop.0000249432.18688.ee10.1097/01.iop.0000249432.18688.ee ↗
39. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.03.03210.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.03.032 ↗