Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Multicenter evaluation of subcutaneous augmentation material implants.

Tom D Wang1

  • 1Division of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Oregon Health & Science University, Mail Code PV-01, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Rd, Portland, OR 97201, USA. wangt@ohsu.edu

Archives of Facial Plastic Surgery
|March 14, 2003
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Functional Septorhinoplasty in Unilateral and Bilateral Nasal Obstruction: A Comparison of Patient-Reported Outcomes.

The Annals of otology, rhinology, and laryngology·2024
Same author

Single-Sided Peak Nasal Inspiratory Flow as an Adjunct Objective Measure in Functional Septorhinoplasty.

The Laryngoscope·2024
Same author

Outcomes of Palatoplasty Techniques: A 10-Year Review of Intravelar Veloplasty Compared with Furlow Double-Opposing Z-Plasty Techniques.

Facial plastic surgery & aesthetic medicine·2024
Same author

Direct Neck Lift for Men.

Facial plastic surgery clinics of North America·2024
Same author

Complications in Rhinoplasty.

Clinics in plastic surgery·2021
Same author

Management of Dorsal Graft and Implant Infections.

Facial plastic surgery : FPS·2020
Same journal

Error in Signature Block in: The JAMA Network Journals: New Names for the Archives Journals.

Archives of facial plastic surgery·2013
Same journal

Facial aesthetics: concepts & clinical diagnosis.

Archives of facial plastic surgery·2013
Same journal

About this journal.

Archives of facial plastic surgery·2013
Same journal

Highlights of archives of facial plastic surgery.

Archives of facial plastic surgery·2013
Same journal

About this journal.

Archives of facial plastic surgery·2013
Same journal

Highlights of archives of facial plastic surgery.

Archives of facial plastic surgery·2013
See all related articles

Preformed facial implants offer a safe and effective option for permanent augmentation. This study evaluated their performance, finding acceptable complication rates and positive aesthetic outcomes in cosmetic and reconstructive surgery.

Area of Science:

  • Plastic Surgery
  • Biomaterials
  • Facial Aesthetics

Background:

  • Facial augmentation aims to enhance or restore facial contours.
  • Preformed, subcutaneous augmentation materials provide an alternative to autologous grafts or custom implants.
  • Evaluating the safety and efficacy of these materials is crucial for clinical practice.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To assess the performance of preformed shapes used for subcutaneous facial implantation.
  • To document complication rates and aesthetic outcomes associated with these implants.

Main Methods:

  • A prospective, multicenter study evaluated 82 patients over one year.
  • Patients received nasal dorsal, chin, or malar implants for elective cosmetic and reconstructive procedures.
  • Outcomes measured included complications (e.g., infection) and aesthetic results (position, projection, contour, symmetry, overall index).

Related Experiment Videos

Main Results:

  • Infection rates requiring implant removal were 3.2% for nasal, 5.3% for chin, and 3.8% for malar implants.
  • An independent panel rated the overall aesthetic outcome: nasal implants scored 4.1, chin implants 3.8, and malar implants 3.6 (on a scale of 1-5).

Conclusions:

  • Preformed subcutaneous augmentation materials represent a relatively safe and effective treatment for permanent facial augmentation.
  • These implants offer a viable alternative for patients seeking facial contour enhancement or reconstruction.