This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related letter  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Biomaterials and Implants  • Reconstructive Facial Surgery  • Trauma/ Maxillofacial Surgery  • Otolaryngology/ Head & Neck Surgery  • Alert me on articles by topic

Jason S. Hamilton, MD

Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2007;9(4):301.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

In reply

I appreciate the comments made by Williams and Parmar. I would like to specifically address each of their suggested limitations to our study. First, Williams and Parmar argue that SupraFoil is not an appropriate material for orbital floor repair because it lacks the ability to retain a molded shape like titanium mesh implants. I disagree with this statement. The "ability [of an implant] to retain its molded shape" is not a criterion for successful restoration of the orbital floor after fracture. The goals of surgery are the elevation of herniated or entrapped orbital soft tissues and the placement of an interposition graft between those soft tissues and the bony defect to allow the floor time to heal. An implant needs to support the orbital contents only during this healing phase. After the orbital floor is healed, the implant is simply a foreign body and . . . [Full Text of this Article]

AUTHOR INFORMATION

RELATED LETTER

Orbital Floor Fracture Repair
Rhodri Williams and Sat Parmar
Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2007;9(4):300-301.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT