Injection of dermal fillers is the second most frequent nonsurgical cosmetic procedure performed in the USA. Dermal fillers are an option in the treatment of volume deficiency, scars, and rhytides; facial sculpting; facial contouring; and augmentation of specific anatomical sites such as the lips. The number of injectable dermal fillers available on the market increases yearly. Dermatologists and cosmetic surgeons should regularly review treatment options to provide patients with safe and effective filler options. This paper extensively reviews the properties of the available fillers, such as their rheology, longevity, and adverse effects, and how these properties affect the choice of filler agent for a particular patient or a particular site. Also, trends in dermal filler injections are discussed.

Surgical refinement of the wide nasal tip is challenging. Achieving an attractive, slender, and functional tip complex without destabilizing the lower nasal sidewall or deforming the contracture-prone alar rim is a formidable task. Excisional refinement techniques that rely upon incremental weakening of wide lower lateral cartilages (LLC) often destabilize the tip complex and distort tip contour. Initial destabilization of the LLC is usually further exacerbated by "shrink-wrap" contracture, which often leads to progressive cephalic retraction of the alar margin. The result is a misshapen tip complex accentuated by a conspicuous and highly objectionable nostril deformity that is often very difficult to treat. The "articulated" alar rim graft (AARG) is a modification of the conventional rim graft that improves treatment of secondary alar rim deformities, including postsurgical alar retraction (PSAR). Unlike the conventional alar rim graft, the AARG is sutured to the underlying tip complex to provide direct stationary support to the alar margin, thereby enhancing graft efficacy. When used in conjunction with a well-designed septal extension graft (SEG) to stabilize the central tip complex, lateral crural tensioning (LCT) to tighten the lower nasal sidewalls and minimize soft-tissue laxity, and lysis of scar adhesions to unfurl the retracted and scarred nasal lining, the AARG can eliminate PSAR in a majority of patients. The AARG is also highly effective for prophylaxis against alar retraction and in the treatment of most other contour abnormalities involving the alar margin. Moreover, the AARG requires comparatively little graft material, and complications are rare. We present a retrospective series of 47 consecutive patients treated with the triad of AARG, SEG, and LCT for prophylaxis and/or treatment of alar rim deformities. Outcomes were favorable in nearly all patients, and no complications were observed. We conclude the AARG is a simple and effective method for avoiding and correcting most alar rim deformities.

Except for the nasolabial angle, the measures obtained in the population sample differed from the published esthetic ideals. Comparing the genders, men had a sharper nasofrontal angle, and higher tip projection than women.

Over the last decade, there has been increasing interest in minimally invasive cosmetic treatments, especially for facial rejuvenation. Next to botulinum toxin injection, the injection of soft tissue fillers is the second most frequent minimally invasive procedure performed in the USA. Hyaluronic acid (HA) is the most commonly used dermal filler. One of patients’ main concerns about filler injections pertains to pain and discomfort. Topical anesthetics, nerve blocks, and/or the incorporation of lidocaine to the filler have been applied in order to reduce distress and pain. Despite nerve blocks being an effective form of anesthesia, they may distort the area to be treated, as well as lengthen and complicate the procedure. Studies have shown that the incorporation of lidocaine to HA fillers significantly reduces pain and discomfort. Yet, one of the dilemmas about the addition of lidocaine solution to HA fillers is the possible alteration of the physical characteristics of the product by negatively impacting the efficacy and/or duration of the filler. The concern is that the addition of lidocaine could dilute the product, creating less correction per mL, changing the product’s viscosity and consequently the “lifting” ability. Also, this dilution could reduce the product’s duration. There may be a difference between a physician adding an aqueous solution into a lidocaine-free version of HA and the pre-incorporated lidocaine version of HA. An aqueous solution might dilute the product, while the pre-incorporated powder lidocaine appears to avoid this problem. Juvéderm® XC is manufactured with powder lidocaine 0.3%; it is associated with significantly less injection pain than Juvéderm® and other lidocaine-free versions of HA. Studies have shown that lidocaine enhances treatment comfort and optimizes the injection experience while maintaining a similar safety and effectiveness profile. Regarding the longevity, further study is necessary to determine if there is any difference in durability.