Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Titanium mesh and bioresorbable plates for orbital floor repair
By Hwang M et al.·2026·Department of Radiology, South Korea·View original on Europe PMC →
PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →
Original publication title: Titanium mesh versus bioresorbable plates in orbital floor repair: Implications for blunt‑impact biomechanics.
Plain-English summary
This study looked at how different materials used to repair the floor of the eye socket (orbital floor) respond to impacts, which is important for protecting the eye. Researchers tested three types of implants: a thin bioresorbable plate made from a special plastic, a thicker bioresorbable plate, and a contoured titanium mesh. They found that while the stress on the eye was similar across all repairs, the titanium mesh was much stiffer and absorbed less impact energy compared to the bioresorbable plates. The bioresorbable plates were better at absorbing impact energy, which means they could help protect the eye more effectively after an injury. Overall, the study suggests that using more flexible materials for these repairs may be better than using very rigid ones.
Abstract
<h4>Background</h4>The native orbital floor behaves as a thin "blow‑out fuse," redirecting blunt‑impact energy away from the globe. Whether this protective role is preserved or lost after reconstruction depends largely on the stiffness and thickness of the implant, but quantitative evidence remains sparse.<h4>Methods</h4>A subject‑specific, CT‑derived head model was analyzed using Abaqus/Explicit. A 20-mm cylindrical impactor struck the reconstructed orbit at 6 m/s. Three clinically used implants were compared: (i) 0.4 mm poly‑L‑lactide‑co‑glycolide / β‑TCP composite plate (CMP), (ii) 0.8 mm poly‑L‑lactide‑co‑glycolide plate (BMP), and (iii) 1.0 mm contoured titanium mesh (Titan fan). Mesh‑density and contact definitions were verified a priori. Peak von Mises stress, absolute maximum principal strain, and internal energy were extracted for the implant and globe.<h4>Findings</h4>Peak globe stress/strain on the anterior surface was similar across reconstructions (von Mises stress 1.80-1.85 MPa). Implant behavior differed substantially: the titanium mesh reached a peak implant von Mises stress of 87.7 MPa while absorbing 14.2 mJ of internal energy. In contrast, CMP and BMP showed markedly lower peak implant stress (2.83 MPa and 2.75 MPa, respectively) while absorbing more internal energy (16.5 mJ and 44.0 mJ). Globe internal energy was 4332 mJ with titanium versus 4180 mJ with both bioresorbable plates (3.5% reduction).<h4>Interpretation</h4>Compliant, bioresorbable plates dissipate a larger fraction of impact energy within the implant itself and modestly reduce the load transmitted to the eye. These results support retaining a degree of orbital‑floor compliance-rather than maximal rigidity-when selecting materials and thicknesses for reconstruction after blow‑out fracture.
Find similar cases for your pet
PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.
Search related cases →Original publication on Europe PMC: https://europepmc.org/article/MED/41791203