Skip to content

Case review · Orbit

Case review: one-piece orbitozygomatic reconstruction

Three regions, one piece: this case rebuilds the orbital floor, the lateral rim and the body of the cheekbone at once. Here is why a one-piece implant was chosen, and how it is fixed.

1 min read2 sources

The case

Defect combining the orbital floor, the lateral orbital rim and the body of the zygoma, the cheekbone. In such combined injuries, the reconstruction must both support the orbital contents and restore the contour of the cheek.

Orbitozygomatic reconstructionOrbit and zygomaOrbitozygomatic reconstructionFloor, lateral rim and body of the zygoma
Overall size
40 × 38 × 64 mm
Thickness
≈ 0.45 mm
Volume
1.1 cm³
Mass (Ti-6Al-4V)
≈ 5 g
Explore the case in 3D

The shape: mirroring the healthy side

The healthy orbit and zygoma serve as the model: their shape is mirrored, then fitted to the edges on the affected side. In comparative studies, orbital implants designed this way from the CT scan are positioned more precisely than preformed plates [1,2].

A curved and very thin floor

The floor follows the curve rising towards the back of the orbit. Its median thickness of about 0.45 mm is enough thanks to the strength of titanium, and keeps the implant from taking up space in the orbit.

Fixation: frontal and malar

Fixation is placed on solid bone: above, on the rim towards the frontal bone, and below, on the malar bone. The lateral strut joins the two and restores the outline of the orbit.

What to look at in the 3D viewer

  • Front view: comparison of both orbits, reconstructed side and healthy side.
  • Coronal plane through the orbit: curvature of the rebuilt floor.
  • Measurement: width of the floor, height of the lateral strut.

Sources

Documents accessed in October 2026. Amounts are given in the currency and for the year of each source.

  1. 1Pietzka S, Wenzel M, Winter K, et al. Comparison of anatomical preformed titanium implants and patient-specific CAD/CAM implants in the primary reconstruction of isolated orbital fractures: a retrospective study. J Pers Med. 2023;13(5):846. doi.org
  2. 2Kotecha S, Ferro A, Harrison P, Fan K. Orbital reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the role of patient-specific implants. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2023;27(2):213-226. doi.org

General information: this article does not replace your surgeon’s advice. Prices vary with the patient, the hospital and the implant; only a formal quote is binding.

A cranioplasty case to review?

Surgeons: send the CT scan for a feasibility study. Patients: your section explains the care pathway.

Chat on WhatsApp