Customised products for orbital wall reconstruction: a systematic review

Published:October 25, 2021DOI:


      The purpose of this systematic review was to critically analyse the recent literature and present the state of the art in customised reconstruction of orbital fractures. Three electronic databases and manual search approaches were used to identify relevant articles. Only controlled clinical studies were included. Primary outcome was defined as the status of recovery (complete/partial functional, and aesthetic disturbances). The benefit of intrasurgical navigation should be described. The secondary outcome was defined as the time of surgery, post-surgical events, and hospitalisation. Of the 552 records identified, eight met the inclusion criteria. Post-surgical results regarding recovery were superior in the customised group, and were comparable to the control group in five studies. The time of surgery was shorter in the customised groups, and liquid infusion and time of hospitalisation were reduced. Four studies documented more accurate reconstruction with the use of navigation. All the studies presented at least one bias, and considerable heterogeneity was evaluated. This review found that the use of customised meshes in combination with surgical navigation resulted in more accurate reconstruction. A significant reduction in surgical time was revealed.


      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Zimmerer R.M.
        • Ellis III, E.
        • Aniceto G.S.
        • et al.
        A prospective multicenter study to compare the precision of posttraumatic internal orbital reconstruction with standard preformed and individualized orbital implants.
        J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2016; 44: 1485-1497
        • Zieliński R.
        • Malińska M.
        • Kozakiewicz M.
        Classical versus custom orbital wall reconstruction: selected factors regarding surgery and hospitalization.
        J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2017; 45: 710-715
        • Rana M.
        • Chui C.H.
        • Wagner M.
        • et al.
        Increasing the accuracy of orbital reconstruction with selective laser-melted patient-specific implants combined with intraoperative navigation.
        J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015; 73: 1113-1118
        • Bourry M.
        • Hardouin J.B.
        • Fauvel F.
        • et al.
        Clinical evaluation of the efficacy of materials used for primary reconstruction of orbital floor defects: meta-analysis.
        Head Neck. 2021; 43: 679-690
        • Dubois L.
        • Steenen S.A.
        • Gooris P.J.
        • et al.
        Controversies in orbital reconstruction-III. Biomaterials for orbital reconstruction: a review with clinical recommendations.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016; 45: 41-50
        • Gander T.
        • Essig H.
        • Metzler P.
        • et al.
        Patient specific implants (PSI) in reconstruction of orbital floor and wall fractures.
        J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2015; 43: 126-130
        • Raisian S.
        • Fallahi H.R.
        • Khiabani K.S.
        • et al.
        Customized titanium mesh based on the 3D printed model vs. manual intraoperative bending of titanium mesh for reconstructing of orbital bone fracture: a randomized clinical trial.
        Rev Recent Clin Trials. 2017; 12: 154-158
        • Christensen B.J.
        • Zaid W.
        Inaugural survey on practice patterns of orbital floor fractures for American oral and maxillofacial surgeons.
        J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016; 74: 105-122
        • Williams L.R.
        • Fan K.F.
        • Bentley R.P.
        Custom-made titanium cranioplasty: early and late complications of 151 cranioplasties and review of the literature.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015; 44: 599-608
        • Moher D.
        • Shamseer L.
        • Clarke M.
        • et al.
        Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement.
        Syst Rev. 2015; 4: 1
        • Higgins J.P.
        • Altman D.G.
        Assessing risk of bias in included studies.
        in: Higgins J.P. Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. John Wiley & Sons, 2008
      1. Higgins JP, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al (Eds.) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, version 6.2 (updated February 2021). Cochrane; 2021. Available from [last accessed 26 December 2021].

        • Kozakiewicz M.
        • Szymor P.
        Comparison of pre-bent titanium mesh versus polyethylene implants in patient specific orbital reconstructions.
        Head Face Med. 2013; 9: 32
        • Stoor P.
        • Suomalainen A.
        • Lindqvist C.
        • et al.
        Rapid prototyped patient specific implants for reconstruction of orbital wall defects.
        J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2014; 42: 1644-1649
        • Baumann A.
        • Sinko K.
        • Dorner G.
        Late reconstruction of the orbit with patient-specific implants using computer-aided planning and navigation.
        J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015; 73: S101-S106
        • Marano R.
        • Tincani A.J.
        Is there an ideal implant for orbital reconstructions? Prospective 64-case study.
        J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2016; 44: 1682-1688
        • Hartmann A.
        • Seiler M.
        Minimizing risk of customized titanium mesh exposures - a retrospective analysis.
        BMC Oral Health. 2020; 20: 36
        • Seiler M.
        • Kämmerer P.W.
        • Peetz M.
        • et al.
        Customized lattice structure in reconstruction of three-dimensional alveolar defects.
        Int J Comput Dent. 2018; 21: 261-267
        • Seiler M.
        • Kammerer P.W.
        • Peetz M.
        • et al.
        Customized titanium lattice structure in three-dimensional alveolar defect: an initial case letter.
        J Oral Implantol. 2018; 44: 219-224
        • Rolke R.
        • Magerl W.
        • Campbell K.A.
        • et al.
        Quantitative sensory testing: a comprehensive protocol for clinical trials.
        Eur J Pain. 2006; 10: 77-88
        • Park H.K.
        • Dujovny M.
        • Agner C.
        • et al.
        Biomechanical properties of calvarium prosthesis.
        Neurol Res. 2001; 23: 267-276
        • Sidambe A.T.
        Biocompatibility of advanced manufactured titanium implants-a review.
        Materials (Basel). 2014; 7: 8168-8188