An Overview of Permanent and Semipermanent Fillers

Broder, Kevin; Cohen, Steven R.

doi:10.1097/01.prs.0000234900.26676.0b

Cited by 206 publications

(153 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

135

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Similarly, in the 1930s, vaseline was injected for so tissue lling of di erent body parts, but was discontinued when tumor-like proliferation occurred 6-8 years a er injection. In 1953, Baronders reviewed the use of liquid silicone for so tissue augmentation and concluded that the chronic in ammation observed a er liquid silicone injection was unacceptable [10,17]. In 1975, bovine collagen was introduced into clinical practice as wrinkle ller [18] and in 1981, Zyderm® (a bovine collagen product) was approved by the FDA [19].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Liquid para n was used as ller material but was discontinued when it was found that para nomas developed years a er injection [10]. Similarly, in the 1930s, vaseline was injected for so tissue lling of di erent body parts, but was discontinued when tumor-like proliferation occurred 6-8 years a er injection.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Safety should always be considered rst, so any ller material should be non-toxic, non-immunogenic and tissue-biocompatible. Filler substances can be divided into three categories: 1) temporary llers that will be absorbed within 4-6 months (such as collagen and hyaluronic acid) [8], 2) semi-permanent llers (such as hydroxyapatite and polylactic acid microspheres) that will be absorbed within 9-12 months [11], and 3) permanent llers (such as uid silicone, polyacrylamide and poly(methyl methacrylate)-microspheres) that are non-absorbable and will remain in the tissues permanently [10]. eoretically, a permanent ller should be preferred for augmentation rhinoplasty, as it does not require ongoing re-treatments but provides a new and improved nasal shape without change in appearance over time.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Because of excessive tissue stimulation, high extrusion rates and brittleness, each of these materials was eventually abandoned. In 1940s, silicone uid injections were used clinically and, a er continuous improvement, a solid implant form was developed and is still widely used in plastic surgery for augmentation rhinoplasty and genioplasty and as silicone rubber shells in breast implants [7][8][9][10].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Comparison of Artecoll, Restylane and silicone for augmentation rhinoplasty in 378 Chinese patients

Chen¹,

Liu²,

Yu³

et al. 2014

CIM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comparison of Artecoll, Restylane and silicone for augmentation rhinoplasty in 378 Chinese patients Abstract Purpose: Dermal llers have been proven to be safe in so tissue augmentation; however, their e cacy in modeling the noses of Asian patients has not been demonstrated. Methods:In this study, 378 patients were included and underwent augmentation rhinoplasty (Artecoll, n=126; Restylane, n=126 and silicone implants, n=126). e subjective and objective outcomes were evaluated on day 1, and months 1, 3, 6, and 12 a er injection rhinoplasty.Results: All patients achieved signi cant improvement in nasal shape and contour immediately a er surgery. Patients treated with Restylane failed to maintain the nasal shape and contour 1 year a er surgery, whereas patients undergoing Artecoll rhinoplasty completely maintained the post-treatment nasal shape and contour. More patients with silicone implants experienced adverse events and the severity of these events was greater in the silicone group compared to those in the Restylane and Acetoll groups.Conclusion: Artecoll rhinoplasty has a low incidence of adverse e ects and the shape and contour of the nose are maintained for a prolonged period.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparison of Artecoll, Restylane and silicone for augmentation rhinoplasty in 378 Chinese patients

Chen¹,

Liu²,

Yu³

et al. 2014

CIM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For these purposes, the ideal material should be biocompatible, safe, and stable at the implantation site; additionally, this material should not cause protrusion through the skin or mucosa, as well as, should induce only minimal reactions against the foreign body, as phagocytosis-resistant and lose the potential to migrate to distant body sites. Moreover, this material should be inert in body fluids and easily manipulated during surgery; above all, it should not induce rejection or late complications [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Potential of Migration and Tissue Reactions to Intraperitoneally Implanted Polymethyl Methacrylate in Wistar Rats

Fc¹,

Acl²,

A³

2016

J Clin Exp Dermatol Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the performance of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) when implanted into the peritoneal cavities of Wistar rats, specifically its potential for migration to the examined organs and possible tissue reactions at the implantation site.Methods: Adult male Wistar rats (290-400 g) were distributed randomly into 2 groups: P4 (n=20), to which 0.4 mL of PMMA was administered; and P2 (n= 0), to which was 2 mL of PMMA were administered. These groups were subsequently divided into 4 subgroups according to the day on which euthanasia occurred (day 1, 7, 14, or 28). Results:The changes in animal weight prior to PMMA implantation and after euthanasia were compared. No nodules or signs of PMMA implantation or any other macroscopic alterations were observed in the spleen, kidneys, lungs, or liver. However, mild-to-moderate inflammatory infiltration in which macrophages, lymphocytes, and neutrophils predominated was observed in at least 1 of the 4 organs examined from each animal during the experimental time points. Mild inflammatory responses were observed that were rich in histiocytes and giant cells and featured increased numbers of blood vessels and fibroblasts in the pericapsular regions of the studied organs. In 29 cases, a greyish material compatible with PMMA was identified. There was no migration of PMMA into the parenchyma of the examined organs. The changes in the tissues were the same regardless of the volume of implanted PMMA. Following staining with HE, the PMMA particles in the tissues were a grayish color, measuring approximately 30-40 µm in size, and were found to have stimulated histiocytic reactions in 29 examined organs. Conclusions:The results showed that the most affected tissues were the visceral peritoneum of the spleen and the kidneys from group P2. Our study may contribute to add a new proof of testing implants.

show abstract

Autologous Superficial Musculoaponeurotic System Graft as Implantable Filler in Nasolabial Fold Correction

Moody¹,

Dozier²,

Garza³

et al. 2008

Archives of Facial Plastic Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To determine whether superficial musculoaponeurotic system (SMAS) graft implantation can improve the appearance of the nasolabial fold. Methods: Single-blinded cohort study in a private facial plastic surgery practice. Treatment and control patients were selected from those presenting for aesthetic surgery. All patients underwent rhytidectomy with SMAS imbrication by a single surgeon. In addition, treatment patients underwent subcutaneous implantation of excised SMAS strips to the nasolabial fold. Treatment and control patients were matched for any other simultaneous procedures known to affect appearance of the nasolabial folds. Preoperative and postoperative photographs were graded by 3 blinded observers using the Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale to evaluate the nasolabial fold. Postoperative photographs were evaluated approximately 3 months and again 1 year after the procedure. Results: Compared with controls, there was a significant difference in the nasolabial folds of patients undergoing SMAS implantation at the 3-month postoperative evaluation (P=.03; 2 =4.696). This benefit was lost when the results were evaluated 1 year after the procedure (P=.88; 2 =0.0212). Conclusion: Superficial musculoaponeurotic system implantation to the nasolabial folds offers modest temporary improvement to this area in patients undergoing rhytidectomy with SMAS imbrication.

show abstract

An Overview of Permanent and Semipermanent Fillers

Cited by 206 publications

References 47 publications

Comparison of Artecoll, Restylane and silicone for augmentation rhinoplasty in 378 Chinese patients

Comparison of Artecoll, Restylane and silicone for augmentation rhinoplasty in 378 Chinese patients

Potential of Migration and Tissue Reactions to Intraperitoneally Implanted Polymethyl Methacrylate in Wistar Rats

Autologous Superficial Musculoaponeurotic System Graft as Implantable Filler in Nasolabial Fold Correction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About