Background Many implants are being used for the reconstruction of orbital wall fractures. The effect of the choice of implant for the reconstruction of an orbital wall fracture on the surgical outcome is under debate. The purpose of this article is to compare the outcomes of orbital wall reconstruction of small orbital wall fractures on the basis of the implants used. Methods The authors conducted a retrospective study using electronic databases. Between March 2001 and December 2012, 461 patients with orbital wall fractures were included in this study. Among them, 431 patients in whom the fracture size was less than $300mm^2$ were analyzed. The fracture size was calculated using computed tomography scans of the orbit in the sagittal and coronal images. Cases in which the fracture size was less than $300mm^2$ were included in this study. Results One hundred and twenty-nine patients were treated with silastic sheets; 238 patients were treated with titanium meshes; and absorbable meshes were used in the case of 64 patients. Overall, 13 patients required revision, and the revision rate was 3.0%. The revision rate of the silastic sheet group was 5.4%. In the multivariable analysis, the revision rate of the group reconstructed with silastic sheets was highly statistically significant (P=0.043, odds ratio=3.65). However, other factors such as age, sex, fracture type, and fracture size were not significant. Conclusions Reconstruction of orbital wall fractures with silastic sheets may cause more complications than that with other materials such as titanium meshes and absorbable meshes.