Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesLaboratory StudyEurope PMCOpen access

Personalized 3D-Printed Hybrid PDMS and PEEK Implants for Revisional Orbitomaxillary Reconstruction: A Translational Case-Based Technical Note

Marić G., Solter D., Doko Mandić B., Škunca Herman J., Vatavuk Z., Godec D.

Laboratory Study on Face & Skin, published in J Funct Biomater (2026) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Laboratory Study
Journal
J Funct Biomater (2026)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
42042303
PMCID
PMC13117049
DOI
10.3390/jfb17040197

Abstract (original English)

The reconstruction of complex orbitomaxillary defects requires biomaterials that can simultaneously provide structural stability, biocompatibility, and accurate restoration of facial volume and contour. While rigid polymers such as polyetheretherketone (PEEK) offer reliable mechanical support, they do not adequately replicate the viscoelastic behavior of soft tissues. This report presents a translational revision case employing a personalized hybrid biomaterial approach that combines a 3D-printed PEEK implant for structural orbital floor support with a patient-specific polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) implant for malar volumetric augmentation. Reconstruction was planned using CT segmentation and contralateral mirroring. Patient-specific implants were subsequently designed using CAD/CAM techniques, combining a rigid PEEK implant for structural orbital support with a flexible PDMS implant for malar volumetric augmentation with complementary mechanical properties. Revision surgery included the removal of inadequately positioned titanium hardware, the release of incarcerated extraocular muscles, and the restoration of orbital anatomy and facial symmetry. Postoperative imaging demonstrated stable implant positioning and sustained orbitomaxillary stability. Despite successful anatomical reconstruction, residual functional sequelae, including strabismus related to the severity of the initi

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • This is preclinical work; animal or laboratory results cannot be applied to humans.

Evidence level

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

How we grade evidence

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research