Prostetic Rehabilitation of an Eye Globe: Case Report

Effect of Rehabilitation with a New Ocular Prosthesis on Electromyography of the Occipitofrontalis, Temporal, Masseter, and Sternocleidomastoid

Objectives  The aim of this study was to verify during facial expressions (“happy,” “sad,” “fearful,” “angry,” “surprised,” and “disgusted”) if: (1) there would be difference in the electromyography (EMG) of the occipitofrontalis, temporal, masseter, and sternocleidomastoid muscles on the normal side (NS) compared with the affected side (AS) (without the use of an ocular prosthesis) in individuals with unilateral absence of the eyeball, and (2) the rehabilitation with a new ocular prosthesis would affect the EMG of the muscles studied on the AS in these individuals.

Materials and Methods  Thirteen individuals, without temporomandibular disorder, with good health, with unilateral absence of the eyeball (the eye must have been removed by evisceration or enucleation), and users or nonusers of an ocular prosthesis were included. EMG of the occipitofrontalis, temporal, masseter, and sternocleidomastoid muscles was performed during rest and facial expressions (“happy,” “sad,” “fearful,” “angry,” “surprised,” and “disgusted”) before (T0) and 90 days after (T1) rehabilitation with a new ocular prosthesis. The analyses were performed in T0 on NS and AS (without the use of an ocular prosthesis), and in T1 on AS with the new ocular prosthesis.

Statistical Analysis  All data were submitted to the Student's t -test with p  < 0.05.

Results  There was no statistically significant difference comparing the AS with the NS in T0 for all muscles studied, during all facial expressions evaluated ( p  > 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference comparing the AS in T0 with itself in T1 for all muscles studied, during all facial expressions evaluated ( p  > 0.05).

Conclusion  Eye loss did not affect the EMG of studied muscles when comparing NS with AS (without the use of an ocular prosthesis). The rehabilitation with ocular prosthesis was not capable of changing the EMG on AS.

In vitro evaluation of the effect of different disinfectants on the biofilm of Staphylococcus epidermidis and Staphylococcus aureus formed on acrylic ocular prostheses

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of disinfectants on the biofilm of Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis formed on the acrylic surface of ocular prostheses. In this study, 396 acrylic specimens were manufactured (50% for Staphylococcus epidermidis, and 50% for Staphylococcus aureus). For each bacterium, 66 specimens were subjected to biofilm formation on their surfaces for 24 hours, 66 specimens were subjected to biofilm formation on their surfaces for 48 hours, and 66 specimens were subjected to biofilm formation on their surfaces for 72 hours. Then, they were divided into groups according to disinfection method (n = 6): sterile distilled water for 10, 15, 30 min, and 6 hours (control); soap for 30 min (NES30); Opti-Free for 30 min (OPF30) and 6 h (OPF6); Efferdent for 15 min (EFF15); and 0.5%, 2%, and 4% chlorhexidine for 10 min (0.5% CHX10, 2% CHX10, and 4% CHX10). After the treatments, the specimens were vortexed to release the biofilm and the counting of bacterial colonies was performed (CFU/mL). Three-way ANOVA and the Tukey-Kramer HSD test were used (α = 0.05). For Staphylococcus epidermidis, there was no significant difference between NES30, OPF30, and OPF6 with their respective control groups; nor between NES30, OPF30, and OPF6 themselves, regardless of the biofilm development period (P >0.05). For Staphylococcus aureus, there was no significant difference between NES30 and OPF30 with their control group; nor between NES30 and OPF30 themselves, regardless of the biofilm development period (P >0.05). For Staphylococcus aureus, OPF6 showed a significant reduction in the number of CFU/mL when compared with its control group, NES30, and OPF30, regardless of the biofilm development period (P <0.05). For both bacteria, 0.5% CHX10, 2% CHX10,4% CHX10, and EFF15 showed a significant reduction in the number of CFU/mL when compared with their control groups, NES30, OPF30, and OPF6, regardless of the biofilm development period (P <0.05). Therefore, EFF15 and CHX (0.5%, 2% and 4%) were effective in reducing Staphylococcus epidermidis and Staphylococcus aureus on acrylic surfaces. NES30 and OPF (30 and 6) are not recommended.