الفهرس 
AcknowledgementOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 126 |  |  |
| | | from | 126 | | |
Abstract
Implant material and structure may impact the incidence of several complications associated with the enucleation or evisceration procedures including implant migration, infection, exposure, and extrusion. Of these, implant exposure and extrusion have been most extensively reported in the literature. A variety of factors affect the likelihood that an implant will become exposed. Poor wound closure, an infected surgical field, an excessively large implant, or a poorly fitting conformer or prosthesis can contribute to wound breakdown and exposure.
In our study we compared the Acrylic, HA and PPE implants as regard surgical techniques, function and complications.
We found that when a similar surgical technique is used, there seems to be no difference in implant or prosthetic motility between acrylic, hydroxy apatite and porous polyethylene implants.
But we found that the rate of implant exposure was higher in cases of hydroxy apatite orbital implants, although such results did not found in other literatures.
Also we found that the highest excellent results, as regard functional and cosmetic outcome, was found among patients of group III (porous polyethylene group) where 60% of patients were excellent, 30% was good and 10% was acceptable with no poor cases.
Polyglactin 910 mesh is a very good wrapping material. An attractive feature of this wrap is the multitude of holes within the mesh, permitting fibrovascular ingrowth over the entire surface of the implant. Furthermore, polyglactin mesh is nonantigentic, inexpensive, easy to use, and readily available. Other advantages of synthetic materials include the avoidance of additional surgical procedures to harvest autogenous wraps and the prevention of disease transmission from donor tissues.