Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2024 Jan 24:11:1348140.
doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2024.1348140. eCollection 2024.

Balancing beauty and science: a review of facial implant materials in craniofacial surgery

Affiliations
Review

Balancing beauty and science: a review of facial implant materials in craniofacial surgery

Martin Kauke-Navarro et al. Front Surg. .

Abstract

Facial reconstruction and augmentation, integral in facial plastic surgery, address defects related to trauma, tumors infections, and congenital skeletal deficiencies. Aesthetic considerations, including age-related facial changes, involve volume loss and diminished projection, often associated with predictable changes in the facial skeleton. Autologous, allogeneic, and alloplastic implants are used to address these concerns. Autologous materials such as bone, cartilage, and fat, while longstanding options, have limitations, including unpredictability and resorption rates. Alloplastic materials, including metals, polymers, and ceramics, offer alternatives. Metals like titanium are biocompatible and used primarily in fracture fixation. Polymers, such as silicone and polyethylene, are widely used, with silicone presenting migration, bony resorption, and visibility issues. Polyethylene, particularly porous polyethylene (MedPor), was reported to have one of the lowest infection rates while it becomes incorporated into the host. Polyether-ether-ketone (PEEK) exhibits mechanical strength and compatibility with imaging modalities, with custom PEEK implants providing stable results. Acrylic materials, like poly-methylmethacrylate (PMMA), offer strength and is thus mostly used in the case of cranioplasty. Bioceramics, notably hydroxyapatite (HaP), offer osteoconductive and inductive properties, and HaP granules demonstrate stable volume retention in facial aesthetic augmentation. Combining HaP with other materials, such as PLA, may enhance mechanical stability. 3D bioprinting with HaP-based bioinks presents a promising avenue for customizable and biocompatible implants. In conclusion, various materials have been used for craniofacial augmentation, but none have definitively demonstrated superiority. Larger randomized controlled trials are essential to evaluate short- and long-term complications comprehensively, potentially revolutionizing facial balancing surgery.

Keywords: face; facial augmentation; implant; reconstruction; zygoma.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Overview of available implant materials for craniofacial reconstruction and augmentation. Autologous and allogeneic tissues (e.g., cartilage, bone) and alloplastic materials (e.g., silicone, polymers such as PEEK, Titanium, and ceramics (e.g., Hydroxyapatite) are available for reconstruction and augmentation of the craniofacial skeleton. Custom made implants can be tailored to the patient's individual needs and anatomy to achieve an optimized fit (shown at the example of zygoma/infraorbital and mandibular angle implant designs).

References

    1. Wong C-H, Mendelson B. Newer understanding of specific anatomic targets in the aging face as applied to injectables: aging changes in the craniofacial skeleton and facial ligaments. Plast Reconstr Surg. (2015) 136:44S–8S. 10.1097/PRS.0000000000001752 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Rojas YA, Sinnott C, Colasante C, Samas J, Reish RG. Facial implants: controversies and criticism. A comprehensive review of the current literature. Plast Reconstr Surg. (2018) 142:991–9. 10.1097/PRS.0000000000004765 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Rubin PJ, Yaremchuk MJ. Complications and toxicities of implantable biomaterials used in facial reconstructive and aesthetic surgery: a comprehensive review of the literature. Plast Reconstr Surg. (1997) 100:1336–53. 10.1097/00006534-199710000-00043 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Yaremchuk MJ. Atlas of Facial Implants. London: Elsevier Health Sciences; (2019).
    1. Whitaker LA. Aesthetic augmentation of the posterior mandible. Plast Reconstr Surg. (1991) 87:268–75. 10.1097/00006534-199102000-00008 - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources