Silicone Implant-Based Paranasal Augmentation for Mild Midface Concavity.
10.7181/acfs.2016.17.1.20
- Author:
Joo Hyun KIM
1
;
Min Su JUNG
;
Byeong Ho LEE
;
Hii Sun JEONG
;
In Suck SUH
;
Duk Kyun AHN
Author Information
1. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Kangnam Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University Medical Center, Seoul, Korea. drahn@hallym.or.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Piriform cortex;
Silicones;
Prosthesis and Implants
- MeSH:
Asian Continental Ancestry Group;
Follow-Up Studies;
Hematoma;
Humans;
Hypesthesia;
Lip;
Paresthesia;
Patient Satisfaction;
Postoperative Complications;
Retrospective Studies;
Sensation;
Silicon*;
Silicones*
- From:Archives of Craniofacial Surgery
2016;17(1):20-24
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND: Midface concavity is a relatively common facial feature in East Asian populations. Paranasal augmentation is becoming an increasingly popular procedure for patients with mild concavity and normal occlusion. In this study, we evaluate clinical outcomes following a series of paranasal augmentation. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed for patients with Class I occlusion who had undergone bilateral paranasal augmentation using custom-made silicone implants, between October 2005 and September 2013. Patient charts were reviewed for demographic information, concomitant operations, and postoperative complications. Preoperative and postoperative (1-month) photographs were used to evaluate operative outcome. RESULTS: The review identified a total of 93 patients meeting study criteria. Overall, aesthetic outcomes were satisfactory. Five-millimeter thick silicone implant was used in 81 cases, and the mean augmentation was 4.26 mm for this thickness. Among the 93 patients, 2 patients required immediate implant removal due to discomfort. An additional 3 patients experienced implant migration without any extrusion. Nine patients complained of transient paresthesia, which had resolved by 2 weeks. There were no cases of hematoma or infection. All patients reported improvement in their lateral profile and were pleased at follow-up. Complications that arose postoperatively included 9 cases of numbness in the upper lip and 3 cases of implant migration. All cases yielded satisfactory results without persisting complications. Sensations were fully restored postoperatively after 1 to 2 weeks. CONCLUSION: Paranasal augmentation with custom-made silicone implants is a simple, safe, and inexpensive method that can readily improve the lateral profile of a patient with normal occlusion. When combined with other aesthetic procedures, paranasal augmentation can synergistically improve outcome and lead to greater patient satisfaction.
