Advertisement

Risk of breakage of cryolite glass prosthetic eyes

  • Alexander C. RokohlEmail author
  • Marc Trester
  • Keith R. Pine
  • Ludwig M. Heindl
Letter to the Editor
  • 19 Downloads

Dear Editor,

Despite the long history of prosthetic eye wear, there appears to be only one comparative study between prostheses made of polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) and those made of cryolite glass [1]. This study compared the concerns of PMMA and cryolite glass prosthetic eye wearers but did not address the durability aspects of these different materials [1]. Since deformities such as scratches or breakages have also been described for PMMA prostheses, wearers of PMMA prosthetic eyes reported no concerns about durability [2] but 7% of cryolite glass eye wearers were concerned about potential breakage of their prosthesis [3]. The significance of this difference requires further investigation as not only the rates of damage but also the main reasons for breakage of glass eyes are unclear [3]. Very few reports describe rare causes of damage of glass prostheses due to abrasion, chemical attack on glass eye surfaces, or extreme temperature differences [4, 5]. High temperature differences...

Keywords

Cryolite glass Prosthetic eyes Anophthalmia Ocular prostheses Breakage 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

A. C. Rokohl, K. R. Pine, and L. M. Heindl have no financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned in the manuscript. A. C. Rokohl, K. R. Pine, and L. M. Heindl declare that they have no conflict of interest. The participants in this study were recruited from the Trester-Institute for Ocular Prosthetics and Artificial Eyes in Cologne that is owned and operated by M. Trester. All authors have full control of all primary data and they agree to allow Graefe’s Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology to review their data upon request.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Patient consent

The patients consented to the submission of the letter to the journal. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Rokohl AC, Koch KR, Adler W, Trester M, Trester W, Pine NS, Pine KR, Heindl LM (2018) Concerns of anophthalmic patients-a comparison between cryolite glass and polymethyl methacrylate prosthetic eye wearers. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-018-3942-8
  2. 2.
    Pine K, Sloan B, Stewart J, Jacobs RJ (2011) Concerns of anophthalmic patients wearing artificial eyes. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 39:47–52.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-9071.2010.02381.x Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rokohl AC, Koch KR, Trester M, Trester W, Pine KR, Heindl LM (2017) Concerns of anophthalmic patients wearing cryolite glass prosthetic eyes. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg DOI.  https://doi.org/10.1097/IOP.0000000000001021
  4. 4.
    Goldfarb HJ (1966) Implosion of a glass artificial eye. Am J Ophthalmol 62:154–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Härting F, Flörke OW, Bornfeld N, Trester W (1984) Surface changes in glass eye prostheses. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 185:272–275.  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2008-1054613 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of OphthalmologyUniversity of CologneCologneGermany
  2. 2.Department of OphthalmologyUniversity Hospital of CologneCologneGermany
  3. 3.Trester-Institute for Ocular Prosthetics and Artificial EyesCologneGermany
  4. 4.School of Optometry and Vision ScienceUniversity of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand
  5. 5.Center for Integrated Oncology Cologne BonnCologneGermany

Personalised recommendations