Intraoral Prosthetic Chin Augmentation With Vertical Incisions

Yin, Jianhua; Fan, Shuqiang; Wu, Xuhong; Pan, Shi; Liao, Lisheng; Jin, Guojun

doi:10.1097/scs.0000000000004252

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We found 28 articles on implant-based chin augmentation, 9–36 which used silicone ( n = 1693); Mersilene mesh ( n = 541), Gore-Tex ( n = 390); Medpor ( n = 308); Prolene mesh ( n = 192); or the following materials no longer in use: Proplast I/II ( n = 123), hard tissue replacement ( n = 55), porous block hydroxyapatite ( n = 12), or Acylic ( n = 11). In 20 cases, the material was not clearly indicated.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Chin Augmentation Techniques: A Systematic Review

Oranges

Grufman

Summa

et al. 2022

Plastic &Amp; Reconstructive Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Chin augmentation has persistently been a popular procedure over the past decades. According to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, approximately 16,500 procedures were performed in 2019. 1 The first description of chin augmentation was reported in 1934 by Aufricht, 2 who used the osteocartilaginous hump obtained from a combined rhinoplasty. In 1942, Hofer 3 introduced horizontal osteotomy performed through an external incision. Later, Trauner and Obwegeser 4 described an intraoral approach. The use of alloplastic material (silicone) as implantable material for chin augmentation was first reported in the early 1950s by Brown et al. 5 Osteotomies and implant augmentations became the most used techniques. In recent years, noninvasive procedures including injectable fillers have gained popularity and become largely used. Interest in Background: Chin augmentation has maintained a high level of popularity among patients and facial plastic surgeons. Several procedures exist to enhance the appearance of a small chin. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic literature review to determine outcomes and complications associated with the different techniques described. Methods: MEDLINE, PubMed, PubMed Central (PMC), and Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases were screened using a search algorithm. The techniques were classified, and related outcomes and complications tabulated and analyzed. Results: A total of 54 studies on primary chin augmentation published from 1977 to 2020 met inclusion criteria, representing 4897 treated patients. Six main surgical techniques were identified: chin augmentation with implants (silicone, Gore-Tex, Mersilene, Prolene, Medpor, Proplast, hard tissue replacement, porous block hydroxyapatite, or acrylic; n = 3344), osteotomy (n = 885), autologous grafts (fat, bone, derma, or cartilage; n = 398), fillers (hyaluronic acid, hydroxyapatite, or biphasic polymer; n = 233), local tissue rearrangements (n = 32), and a combination of implant placement and osteotomy (n = 5). All techniques provided consistently satisfactory cosmetic outcomes. The overall complication rate of the most represented groups was 15.7% for implants and 19.7% for osteotomy, including 2.4% and 16.4% cases of transient mental nerve-related injuries, respectively. Conclusions: All described chin augmentation techniques achieved good outcomes with high patient satisfaction. Thorough knowledge of each technique is essential to minimize each procedure's specific complications. Caution is generally needed to avoid nerve injuries and potential overcorrection or undercorrection.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Chin Augmentation Techniques: A Systematic Review

Oranges

Grufman

Summa

et al. 2022

Plastic &Amp; Reconstructive Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In 20 of the studies, the transoral approach was used. [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29] In 15 studies, plus our center's data set, the submental approach was used. 7,[30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43] In 3 studies, their experience with both transoral and submental approaches was described.…”

Section: Study Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In 20 of the studies, the transoral approach was used. 10-29 In 15 studies, plus our center’s data set, the submental approach was used. 7,30-43 In 3 studies, their experience with both transoral and submental approaches was described.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparisons of Outcomes of Chin Implantation Using the Transoral Versus Submental Technique: A Systematic Review

Best

Choi

et al. 2022

Am J Cosmet Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Chin implantation is a commonly performed facial plastic surgery procedure. There are 2 approaches to this procedure: submental and transoral. There is no consensus as to which is the best and safest approach. Objective: The objective of this review is to ascertain the risks and benefits of using an intraoral versus submental approach for chin implantation. Methods: A systematic review of all articles published in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar was performed from 1966 to 2020. Results: A total of 1410 articles were reviewed and 38 were chosen for the review based on predetermined selection criteria. Total complication rates in the transoral group ranged from 0% to 14.7%, whereas total complication rates in the submental group ranged from 0% to 15%. No clear difference in the rates of any specific complication was found between the 2 groups. Conclusion: There is no demonstrated difference in complication rates between the 2 approaches to chin implantation. Individual patient assessment and surgeon preference remain the most important determinants of surgical approach.

show abstract

“…Likewise, they reported no incidence of complications or further surgical or nonsurgical correction. 14…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Likewise, they reported no incidence of complications or further surgical or nonsurgical correction. 14 There is no restriction to the type of implant in this new technique, albeit porous polyethylene implants are preferred over the silicone implants due to the lower probability of displacement as a result of fixation with screws to the mandible. In case of the latter type of implants, prevention of displacement can be achieved by creating a snug pocket to hug the implant in place.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%