DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Silicone Implant-Based Paranasal Augmentation for Mild Midface Concavity

  • Kim, Joo Hyun (Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Kangnam Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University Medical Center) ;
  • Jung, Min Su (Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Kangnam Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University Medical Center) ;
  • Lee, Byeong Ho (Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Kangnam Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University Medical Center) ;
  • Jeong, Hii Sun (Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Kangnam Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University Medical Center) ;
  • Suh, In Suck (Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Kangnam Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University Medical Center) ;
  • Ahn, Duk Kyun (Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Kangnam Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University Medical Center)
  • Received : 2015.04.23
  • Accepted : 2015.12.03
  • Published : 2016.03.20

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.

Keywords

References

  1. Ohjiya Y, Sakamoto Y, Kamiishi H. Our principle for protrusion of the mandibular angle. Jpn Soc Aesthet Plast Surg 1988;10:44.
  2. Park H, Chun KW, Kye MS, Dhong ES, Yoon ES. Midface augmentation using bony segments obtained from sagittal splitting angle ostectomy in asians. Plast Reconstr Surg 2008;121:578-86. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000297836.98360.8a
  3. Yaremchuk MJ, Israeli D. Paranasal implants for correction of midface concavity. Plast Reconstr Surg 1998;102:1676-84. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-199810000-00055
  4. You JS, Kim SG, Oh JS, Lim KS, Shin SM, Kim CM. Paranasal augmentation using medpor implant and changes in lateral profile. Oral Biol Res 2013;7:125-30.
  5. Fanous N, Yoskovitch A. Premaxillary augmentation: adjunct to rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 2000;106:707-12. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-200009010-00031
  6. Choung PH, Kim SG. The coronoid process for paranasal augmentation in the correction of midfacial concavity. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2001;91:28-33. https://doi.org/10.1067/moe.2001.111759
  7. Romano JJ, Iliff NT, Manson PN. Use of Medpor porous polyethylene implants in 140 patients with facial fractures. J Craniofac Surg 1993;4:142-7. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001665-199307000-00007
  8. Atherton D, Haers P. Midfacial augmentation in teenage cleft patients using malar and paranasal Medpor implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2014;43:824-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2014.01.015
  9. Kim SK, Yoon CM, Kim MH, Kim MS, Lee KC. Considerations for the management of cryptotia based on the experience of 34 patients. Arch Plast Surg 2012;39:601-5. https://doi.org/10.5999/aps.2012.39.6.601
  10. Peled ZM, Warren AG, Johnston P, Yaremchuk MJ. The use of alloplastic materials in rhinoplasty surgery: a meta-analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg 2008;121:85e-92e. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000299386.73127.a7
  11. Sclafani AP, Romo T 3rd. Biology and chemistry of facial implants. Facial Plast Surg 2000;16:3-6. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2000-12570
  12. de la Pena-Salcedo JA, Soto-Miranda MA, Lopez-Salguero JF. Intranasal surgical approach for malar alloplastic augmentation. Aesthet Surg J 2012;32:27-38. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090820X11430498