Midfacial Soft-Tissue Changes after Paranasal Augmentation with Porous Polyethylene

 

 Buy Article Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The aim of this study was to determine the effect of porous polyethylene in paranasal augmentation on the overlying soft tissue. Thirty-three patients underwent paranasal augmentation using 3-mm-thick porous polyethylene and mandibular setback, and 35 patients underwent mandibular setback only. Lateral cephalograms were taken before and 6 months after the surgery to compare the soft-tissue changes in the paranasal area. Complications and patient satisfaction following the surgery were also analyzed. The average soft-tissue change in the paranasal area after the augmentation was 2.42 ± 0.33 mm, while there was no definite soft-tissue change in the paranasal area after mandibular setback alone. The ratio of soft-tissue changes to paranasal implant thickness was 80.7%. All patients in the augmentation group were satisfied with their surgical outcomes, which led to convex lateral profile with increase in midface volume. There were no complications such as postoperative infection or foreign body reaction requiring removal of implants. Paranasal augmentation using porous polyethylene is a predictable method providing minimal morbidity in patients with paranasal deficiency.

• References

• 1 Yamaguchi T, Park SB, Narita A, Maki K, Inoue I. Genome-wide linkage analysis of mandibular prognathism in Korean and Japanese patients. J Dent Res 2005; 84 (3) 255-259
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Sabuncuoglu F, Varol A, Sençimen M, Olmez H. Onlay iliac bone grafting as an ancillary augmentation procedure for paranasal rejuvenation during bimaxillary surgery. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2010; 109 (2) e13-e19
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Yaremchuk MJ, Israeli D. Paranasal implants for correction of midface concavity. Plast Reconstr Surg 1998; 102 (5) 1676-1684 , discussion 1685
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Romano JJ, Iliff NT, Manson PN. Use of Medpor porous polyethylene implants in 140 patients with facial fractures. J Craniofac Surg 1993; 4 (3) 142-147
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 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 (1) 28-33
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Chow TK, Yu CN, Fung SC, Tang BN, Wong SL, Lok GC. Pyriform rim sandwich osteotomy: a new regional osteotomy for correction of para-alar deficiency. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2004; 62 (2) 256-260
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Hernández-Alfaro F, García E, Martí C, Porta A. U-shaped osteotomy in management of paranasal deficiency. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2006; 35 (12) 1145-1148
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Zim S. Skeletal volume enhancement: implants and osteotomies. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004; 12 (4) 349-356
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Niechajev I. Facial reconstruction using porous high-density polyethylene (Medpor): long-term results. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2012; 36 (4) 917-927
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Nocini PF, Boccieri A, Bertossi D. Gridplan midfacial analysis for alloplastic implants at the time of jaw surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009; 123 (2) 670-679
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Yaremchuk MJ. Facial skeletal reconstruction using porous polyethylene implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 2003; 111 (6) 1818-1827
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Park SB, Kim YI, Hwang DS, Lee JY. Midfacial soft-tissue changes after mandibular setback surgery with or without paranasal augmentation: cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) volume superimposition. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2013; 41 (2) 119-123
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 James GJ, Moore RJ, Perry MJ. Impregnation of antibiotic into porous high density polyethylene material (Medpor) using negative pressure. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2006; 44 (6) 556-557
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 McNamara Jr JA. A method of cephalometric evaluation. Am J Orthod 1984; 86 (6) 449-469
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Friedman CD. Future directions in alloplastic materials for facial skeletal augmentation. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 2002; 10 (2) 175-180
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Klawitter JJ, Bagwell JG, Weinstein AM, Sauer BW. An evaluation of bone growth into porous high density polyethylene. J Biomed Mater Res 1976; 10 (2) 311-323
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Spector M, Flemming WR, Kreutner A. Bone growth into porous high-density polyethylene. J Biomed Mater Res 1976; 10 (4) 595-603
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Oliveira RV, de Souza Nunes LS, Filho HN, de Andrade Holgado L, Ribeiro DA, Matsumoto MA. Fibrovascularization and osteogenesis in high-density porous polyethylene implants. J Craniofac Surg 2009; 20 (4) 1120-1124
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Wellisz T. Clinical experience with the Medpor porous polyethylene implant. Aesthetic Plast Surg 1993; 17 (4) 339-344
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 20 Sykes JM, Patel KG. Use of Medpor implants in rhinoplasty surgery. Oper Tech Otolaryngol-Head Neck Surg 2008; 19 (4) 273-277
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 Blaydon SM, Shepler TR, Neuhaus RW, White WL, Shore JW. The porous polyethylene (Medpor) spherical orbital implant: a retrospective study of 136 cases. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 2003; 19 (5) 364-371
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 22 Keefe MS, Keefe MA. An evaluation of the effectiveness of different techniques for intraoperative infiltration of antibiotics into alloplastic implants for use in facial reconstruction. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2009; 11 (4) 246-251
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 23 Kwon TG, Kang SM, Hwang HD. Three-dimensional soft tissue change after paranasal augmentation with porous polyethylene. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2014; 43 (7) 816-823
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 24 Nkenke E, Vairaktaris E, Kramer M , et al. Three-dimensional analysis of changes of the malar-midfacial region after LeFort I osteotomy and maxillary advancement. Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008; 12 (1) 5-12
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar