We have located links that may give you full text access.
Clinical Trial
Evaluation Studies
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Multicenter evaluation of subcutaneous augmentation material implants.
Archives of Facial Plastic Surgery 2003 March
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of subcutaneous augmentation material preformed shapes for facial implantation.
DESIGN: One-year prospective multicenter evaluation of implant performance.
SETTING: General community hospital; private and institutional practice; and ambulatory care setting.
PATIENTS: Eighty-two patients undergoing elective cosmetic and reconstructive procedures.
INTERVENTIONS: Patients received nasal dorsal implants (31 patients); chin implants (38 patients); and malar implants (13 patients).
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Complications and aesthetic outcome, including implant position, projection, contour, symmetry, and overall aesthetic index.
RESULTS: Complication rates for infection that required implant removal included nasal dorsal implants, 3.2%; chin implants, 5.3%; and malar implants, 3.8%. The overall aesthetic outcome was judged by an independent panel of facial plastic surgeons on a scale from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent): nasal dorsal implants scored 4.1; chin implants, 3.8; and malar implants, 3.6.
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that subcutaneous augmentation material preformed shapes offer a relatively safe and effective treatment alternative for permanent facial augmentation.
DESIGN: One-year prospective multicenter evaluation of implant performance.
SETTING: General community hospital; private and institutional practice; and ambulatory care setting.
PATIENTS: Eighty-two patients undergoing elective cosmetic and reconstructive procedures.
INTERVENTIONS: Patients received nasal dorsal implants (31 patients); chin implants (38 patients); and malar implants (13 patients).
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Complications and aesthetic outcome, including implant position, projection, contour, symmetry, and overall aesthetic index.
RESULTS: Complication rates for infection that required implant removal included nasal dorsal implants, 3.2%; chin implants, 5.3%; and malar implants, 3.8%. The overall aesthetic outcome was judged by an independent panel of facial plastic surgeons on a scale from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent): nasal dorsal implants scored 4.1; chin implants, 3.8; and malar implants, 3.6.
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that subcutaneous augmentation material preformed shapes offer a relatively safe and effective treatment alternative for permanent facial augmentation.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices 
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app