Titanium Mesh versus Medpor Implant in Orbital Floor Reconstructions: A Comparative Study

Abstract

Background: Treating 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. Objective: To compare the functional results of individual reconstruction of orbital floor using either titanium mesh or Medpor in terms of various factors. Materials and Methods: There 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 th week, and 3 months after the surgery. 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. P value was significant in the study Group A with P = 0.0431* and was insignificant in the study Group B with P = 0.1088. Results: All 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. Conclusion: Although orbital reconstruction is a technique sensitive procedure both Medpore and Titanium mesh functions.

The Use of Functional Biomaterials in Aesthetic and Functional Restoration in Orbital Surgery

“…Metallic materials, with titanium being the most widely used, remain the preferred gold standard for orbital floor reconstruction nowadays [27][28][29][30]. Titanium's exceptional biocompatibility, corrosion resistance, and mechanical properties closely resembling natural bone make it a preferred choice.…”

“…Commercially available PE sheets of varying sizes and thicknesses can be easily adapted for individual cases, promoting tissue ingrowth while minimizing complications such as foreign body reactions [63][64][65]. A recent comparative study of Medpor versus titanium mesh by Marella and colleagues found that Medpor significantly lowered pain and enophthalmos scores, while both groups had comparable outcomes for all other parameters [28]. While it lacks radiodensity and might not be easily visualized on post-operative CT scans, Medpor is generally well-received by the body and its porous architecture enables the formation of fibrovascular networks, serving as a safeguard against infections and implant displacement [66].…”

Biopolymeric Innovations in Ophthalmic Surgery: Enhancing Devices and Drug Delivery Systems

“…The study found that Medpor ® was more effective in reducing pain and enophthalmos than titanium mesh. However, for all other evaluated parameters, both groups showed comparable outcomes [ 33 ]. Despite its general acceptance, complications such as implant extrusion and infection have been reported [ 34 , 35 , 36 ].…”