Exploration of BioMat-X

Table 3.

Summary of current materials used in orbital bone fracture repair

Material type	Advantages	Disadvantages	References
Bone grafts (Calvarium, iliac crest, rib, maxillary sinus)	Cost-effective Good stability Maximal biocompatibility Smooth surface Variability in thickness Radio-opacity	Limited availability Variable resorption rate (unpredictable orbit volume) Donor site morbidity Increased surgical time	[112, 123–127]
Titanium meshes	Permanent and good fixation Good compatibility and permeability Good strength Radio-opacity	Risk of late infections secondary to chronic sinusitis Expensive Not easily removable Sharp edges and palpable	[112, 123–126, 128–130]
Porous polyethylene sheets	Allows for tissue integration	Lack of rigidity Not visible on imaging High cost Risk of compartment syndrome Less drainage	[112, 123–126, 129, 131, 132]
Composite of porous polyethylene and titanium meshes	Combines advantages from both biomaterial Radio-opacity Good stability and fixation Can be used in three-wall fractures Allows for tissue integration	Risk of compartment syndrome High cost No need for donor site Less drainage	[112, 124–126, 128–130, 132]
Resorbable materials (thermoplastic and non-thermoplastics)	Good availability Smooth surface Good malleability (thermoplastics only)	Not visible on imaging Possibility of material degradation Inflammatory response Less drainage	[112, 123–126, 129, 132]
Preformed orbital implant	Smooth surface Minimal countering needed Radio-opacity	Very high cost	[112, 123–126, 129, 132]