COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF RETENTION AND MARGINAL ADAPTATION OF ORBITAL PROSTHESES USING DIFFERENT ADHESIVES: A CLINICAL RESEARCH STUDY

Authors

Dr. Neha Bipinchandra Liya; Dr. Satya Prakash R. Shah; Dr. Darshana N Shah; Dr. Vilas Patel; Dr. Sareen Duseja; Dr. Meet A. Shah Author

Keywords:

Maxillofacial prosthesis, orbital prosthesis, silicone prosthesis, adhesives, Silbione, Pros-Aide, Daro, clinical evaluation.

Abstract

Background: Maxillofacial prostheses play a vital role in the rehabilitation of patients with facial defects. The retention and marginal adaptation of orbital prostheses are essential for aesthetic acceptability and patient satisfaction. Adhesives are commonly used to enhance prosthesis retention, but their effectiveness varies.
Aim: This clinical study aimed to compare the retention and marginal adaptation of orbital prostheses using different commercially available maxillofacial adhesives.
Materials and Methods: A total of 15 patients with orbital defects rehabilitated with silicone prostheses were enrolled and divided into three groups based on the type of adhesive used—Group A (Silbione adhesive), Group B (Pros-Aide), and Group C (Daro adhesive). Retention was assessed using a digital force gauge, while marginal adaptation was evaluated through visual inspection and digital photography analyzed via image processing software.
Results: Group A demonstrated the highest mean retention force (p < 0.05), while Group B showed better marginal adaptation. Group C exhibited lower performance in both parameters.
Conclusion: The choice of adhesive significantly affects the retention and marginal adaptation of orbital prostheses. Silbione adhesive may offer superior retention, whereas Pros-Aide may ensure better marginal fit.