PubMed HealthSearch

PubMed · 6513398

[Surface changes in glass eye prostheses].

Abstract

The exposed surface of new glass eye protheses becomes rough and is destroyed in use. The changes in the exposed surfaces have been demonstrated by scanning electron microscopy and with thin sections under optical microscopes. The alteration process depends on the length of time the artificial eye is worn. The main cause is chemical attack of the glass surface in the tear fluid, which is usually slightly alkaline. Chronic conjunctival inflammation, appearing after a long period of wearing the same artificial eye, may be caused by mechanical irritation from the surface roughness.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

F Härting, O W Flörke, N Bornfeld, W Trester. 1984. [Surface changes in glass eye prostheses].. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2008-1054613

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Using an existing orbital prosthesis in the construction of a new one.

A procedure for fabrication of a new orbital prosthesis using an existing one and keeping its acceptable characteristics is described. The procedure saves time without depriving the patient of the existing prosthesis for a long period and can be applied in the remaking of other types of facial prostheses.

Eye, Artificial

[The Heidelberg Retina Tomograph: reproducibility and measuring errors in different pupillary widths using a model eye].

BACKGROUND: We measured the reproducibility and relative error of the Heidelberg Retina Tomograph (HRT) in a model eye with various widths of the pupil. METHODS: We put diaphragms of various diameters in front of the lens of a model eye. The volume of an artificial papilla which was inserted into the model eye was measured three times. The coefficient of variation (standard deviation/mean value) was taken as a measure of the reproducibility. The relative error was defined as the absolute value of the quotient of the difference between measured and real value. RESULTS: The relative error for diaphragms of 1.5 to 5 mm was 7% to 18.4%, for a diaphragm of 1 mm 19.8%, and for a diaphragm of 11 mm 21.3%. The coefficient of variation ranged from 0.49% to 1.95% for diaphragms of 1.5 to 11 mm diameter, and was 8.1 for a diaphragm of 1 mm diameter. CONCLUSION: The HRT is capable of measuring volumes with a reasonable accuracy. The accuracy does not depend on the width of the pupil over a wide range of pupil diameters. In cases of very small or very much dilated pupils the accuracy and reproducibility declines.

Eye, Artificial