• Archives of Plastic Surgery
• /
• v.33 no.2
• /
• pp.219-224
• /
• 2006

Augmentation rhinoplasty is one of the most popular aesthetic procedure in Asians. Numerous alloplastic implants have been used until now, but no accurate comparative analysis about the implant materials has been reported yet. This study in animal model was designed to determine the safety and effectiveness of various implant materials in augmentation rhinoplasty. The $15{\times}15{\times}2mm$ sized square shaped plate of $Gore-Tex^{(R)}$, silicone rubber, and $15{\times}15{\times}1.5mm$ sized $Medpor^{(R)}$ were implanted under panniculus carnosus of the abdomen wall of rat. And tissue specimens including the implant and surrounding soft tissue were obtained by en bloc excision in 6 months after implantation. The implants were estimated in weight and volume, and also the specimens were examined grossly and microscopically. The results revealed that increase of average weight 26.9%, decrease of average volume 55.4% in $Gore-Tex^{(R)}$ implant, increase of each average weight and volume 62.6%, 8.7% in $Medpor^{(R)}$ implant and very slight increase of both average weight and volume 4.7%, 1.1% in silicone rubber implant. Grossly, the $Gore-Tex^{(R)}$ was deformed, $Medpor^{(R)}$ was strongly adherent to surrounding soft tissue and the silicone rubber was well encapsulated and easily peeled off. Microscopically, silicone rubber showed foreign body reaction slightly and there were no inflammatory responses in all alloplastic implants. In our study, silicone rubber showed very proper alloplastic features for augmentation rhinoplasty due to causing no inflammatory response, no physical change, and no deformity.

• Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• /
• v.18 no.2
• /
• pp.177-183
• /
• 1996

With the increasing esthetic requirement in orthognathic surgeries, midfacial corrective surgeries were developed to improve the paranasal depression. Augmentation with autogenous bones has long been the standard in facial reconstruction, however limited graft availability, donor site morbidity, and difficulties in 3-dimensional shaping were led to limited use. Porous high density polyethylene$(Medpor{(R)})$ was introduced in the 1970s as an alloplastic implants. It can be used in various size and shapes, and shortend operation time. The purpose of this study is to determine, by means of cephalometrics, the degree of long term stability and gaining of the overlying soft tissue thickness. The results were as followings : 1. There was no evidence of foreign body reaction, infection, and tissue necrosis. 2. $(Medpor{(R)})$ implants had an advantage of clinical use ; easy to contour and adapt to obtain a precise 3-dimensional construction. 3. Cephalometric study of 16 cases of paranasal augmentation revealed an overall increase of soft tissue thickness of approximately 82.1% in 6-months following. 4. The successful results could be obtained under the aseptic handling.

• Archives of Plastic Surgery
• /
• v.37 no.4
• /
• pp.380-384
• /
• 2010

Purpose: Distinguishing different types of implants and assessing the position and size of implants by radiologic exam after orbital wall reconstruction is important in determining the surgery outcome and forecasting prognosis. We observed time-dependent density changes in three types of implants (porous polyethylene, resorbing plate and titanium mesh plate) by performing facial bone CT after orbital wall reconstructions. Methods: A total of 32 patients, who had underwent orbital wall fracture surgery from October 2006 to March 2009 and received facial bone CT as outpatients at 1 postoperative year were included in the study. Follow-up facial bone CT was performed on the patients pre- operatively, 1 month post-operatively, and 1 year post-operatively to observe the status of the orbital implants. Medpor $^{(R)}$ (Porex Surgical, Inc., Newnan, Ga.) was used as porous polyethylene and followed-up in 14 cases; for resorbing plate, Synthes mesh plate (Synthes, Oberdorf, Switzerland) was used in the reconstruction, and followed-up in 11 cases; and titanium mesh plate usage was followed-up in 7 cases. Computed tomographic scan (CT) and water's view were done for radiography, and hounsfield unit (HU) was used to compare density of those facial bone CT. Wilcoxon signed rank test was applied to statistically verify measurement difference in each group of hounsfield units. Results: Facial bone CT examination performed in 1 month post-operative showed that the density of porous polyethylene, resorbing plate and titanium mesh plate were -42.07, 105.67 and 539.48 on average, respectively. Among the three types of implants, titanium mesh plate showed the highest density due to its radiopaque feature. Following up the density of three types of implants in CT during 1 year after the orbital wall fracture surgery, the density of porous polyethylene increased in 10.52 House Field Units and the resorbing plate was decreased in 26.87 HouseField Units. There were no significant differences between densities in 1 month post-operatively and 1 year post-operatively in each group ($p{\geq}0.05$). Conclusion: We performed facial bone CT on patients with orbital fractures during follow-up period, distinguishing the types of implants by the different concentration of implant density, and the densities showed little change even at 1 year post-operative. To observe how implant densities change in facial bone CT, further studies with longer follow-up periods should be carried out.