Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 23, 2026
Three-Dimensional Reconstruction of Orbital Fractures
Published on: May 16, 2025
Research Trends and Knowledge Structure of Orbital Reconstruction Materials and Implants: A Bibliometric Analysis
1Department of Ophthalmology, Zigong Fourth People's Hospital, Zigong, Sichuan, China.
Background:
Orbital reconstruction materials and implants are central to restoring orbital anatomy and function after trauma and related defects. Although research has expanded steadily, the global landscape, thematic evolution, and intellectual structure of this field have not been systematically characterized. This study provides a bibliometric overview of worldwide research on orbital reconstruction materials and implants.
Methods:
Records were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection and PubMed on March 10, 2026. After screening, deduplication, and eligibility assessment, 1909 articles and reviews were included. Records were standardized before analysis. CiteSpace and VOSviewer were used to analyze publication trends, collaboration networks, journal distribution, keyword co-occurrence, burst terms, cited references, and thematic clusters.
Results:
The earliest included study was published in 1965, and publication output generally increased over time. Thematic analyses suggested a shift from conventional trauma repair toward material-oriented optimization, orbital volume restoration, and, more recently, patient-specific and digitally assisted reconstruction. Keyword and clustering analyses remained centered on clinically defined reconstructive problems, particularly orbital fracture repair, implant selection, and imaging-based evaluation. Burst analyses indicated growing attention to patient-specific implants, digital planning, comparative strategies, and clinically meaningful postoperative outcomes.
Conclusion:
Orbital reconstruction materials research has become multidisciplinary but remains clinically focused. Current evidence suggests a transition beyond simple defect repair toward more precise and individualized implant-guided reconstruction. Future progress will likely depend less on expanding implant options alone and more on stronger comparative evidence for selective, defect-specific, and clinically meaningful use of existing strategies.