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 Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

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

Sort by
Same author

Improving Male Chin and Mandible Eesthetics.

Clinics in plastic surgery·2022
Same author

Invited Discussion on: Paranasal Augmentation Using Diced Costal Cartilage for Midface Concavity-A Retrospective Study of 68 Patients.

Aesthetic plastic surgery·2022
Same author

Role of the Pedicled Mentalis Muscle Flap in Closure of Chin Implants in Genioplasty.

Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open·2021
Same author

Invited Discussion on: "A Reliable Method for Chin Augmentation by Mechanical Micronization of Lipoaspirates".

Aesthetic plastic surgery·2021
Same author

Changing Mandible Contour Using Computer Designed/Computer Manufactured Alloplastic Implants.

Aesthetic surgery journal·2021
Same author

Invited Discussion on "The Ideal Eyebrow: Lessons Learnt from the Literature".

Aesthetic plastic surgery·2020

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Dec 21, 2025

Three-Dimensional Reconstruction of Orbital Fractures
08:18

Three-Dimensional Reconstruction of Orbital Fractures

Published on: May 16, 2025

532

Facial skeletal reconstruction using porous polyethylene implants.

Michael J Yaremchuk1

  • 1Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Mass. 02114, USA. myaremchuk@partners.org

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
|April 25, 2003
PubMed
Summary

Porous polyethylene facial implants demonstrate favorable biomaterial properties for skeletal augmentation. Screw fixation allows precise contouring, with a low reoperation rate for infections or aesthetic concerns.

More Related Videos

3D Planning and Printing of Patient Specific Implants for Reconstruction of Bony Defects
08:15

3D Planning and Printing of Patient Specific Implants for Reconstruction of Bony Defects

Published on: August 4, 2020

6.9K
Treatment of Facial Deformities using 3D Planning and Printing of Patient-Specific Implants
07:11

Treatment of Facial Deformities using 3D Planning and Printing of Patient-Specific Implants

Published on: May 23, 2020

7.8K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Dec 21, 2025

Three-Dimensional Reconstruction of Orbital Fractures
08:18

Three-Dimensional Reconstruction of Orbital Fractures

Published on: May 16, 2025

532
3D Planning and Printing of Patient Specific Implants for Reconstruction of Bony Defects
08:15

3D Planning and Printing of Patient Specific Implants for Reconstruction of Bony Defects

Published on: August 4, 2020

6.9K
Treatment of Facial Deformities using 3D Planning and Printing of Patient-Specific Implants
07:11

Treatment of Facial Deformities using 3D Planning and Printing of Patient-Specific Implants

Published on: May 23, 2020

7.8K

Area of Science:

  • Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
  • Biomaterials Science
  • Facial Surgery

Background:

  • Facial skeletal deformities require reconstructive solutions.
  • Porous polyethylene implants offer potential for facial augmentation.
  • Assessing clinical utility and morbidity is crucial for implant selection.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To evaluate the clinical outcomes, utility, and morbidity of porous polyethylene facial implants.
  • To analyze implant performance across various etiologies of facial deformity.
  • To determine the long-term safety and efficacy of these implants.

Main Methods:

  • Retrospective review of 370 porous polyethylene implants in 162 patients over 11 years.
  • Data categorized by deformity cause (acquired, congenital, aesthetic, posttraumatic, acute trauma) and implant location.
  • Analysis of reoperation rates, complications, and follow-up periods (average 27 months).

Main Results:

  • No implant extrusion, migration, or bioincompatibility symptoms observed.
  • Overall reoperation rate was 10%, with 2% for infection and 8% for contour improvement/correction.
  • Implants were placed subperiosteally and secured with titanium screws for precise contouring.

Conclusions:

  • Porous polyethylene implants are suitable for facial skeletal augmentation due to favorable biomaterial properties.
  • Screw fixation enables predictable and precise contouring, minimizing revision surgeries.
  • The implant material demonstrates good biocompatibility and clinical utility in diverse facial reconstruction scenarios.