Download PDF
Facial Plast Surg 2000; 16(1): 003-006
DOI: 10.1055/s-2000-12570

Copyright © 2000 Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc., 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA. Tel: + 1(212) 584-4662.

Biology and Chemistry of Facial Implants

Anthony P. Sclafani1 , Thomas Romo, III1
  • 1Division of Facial Plastic Surgery, The New York Eye and Ear Infirmary, New York, NY, and Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, New York Medical College, Valhalla, NY
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
31 December 2000 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

Facial implants have become increasingly more sophisticated in the past 10 to 15 years. The concept of “the ideal implant” has progressed from an inert material that interacts minimally with the host tissue to one that participates in the normal function of the tissues. A thorough understanding of their chemical properties is essential to understand the biologic events that occur around these materials after implantation. This article outlines the salient features of common materials encountered in facial implants used in plastic surgery.

KEYWORDS

silicone - Mersilene - Medpor - Gore-Tex - hydroxyapatite

REFERENCES

  • 1 Sauberman H R. Approval process for implants in otolaryngology.  Otolaryngol Clin North Am . 1995;  28 235-244
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Morehead J M, Holt G R. Soft-tissue response to synthetic biomaterials.  Otolaryngol Clin NA . 1994;  27 195-201
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Tang L, Eaton J W. Inflammatory response to biomaterials.  Am J Clin Pathol . 1995;  103 466-471
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Staffel G, Shochley W. Nasal implants.  Otolaryngol Clin NA . 1995;  28 295-308
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Costantino P D, Friedman C D, Lane A. Synthetic biomaterials in facial plastic and reconstructive surgery.  Fac Plast Surg . 1993;  9 1-15
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Silver F H, Maas C S. Biology of synthetic facial implant materials.  Fac Plast Surg Clin of North Am . 1994;  2 241-253
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Sclafani A P, Thomas J R, Cox A J, Cooper M H. Clinical and histologic response of subcutaneous expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (Gore-Tex) and porous high density polyethylene (Medpor) implants to acute and early infection.  Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg . 1997;  123 328-336
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Sclafani A P, Romo T, Silver L. Clinical and histologic behavior of exposed porous high-density polyethylene implants.  Plast Reconstr Surg . 1997;  99 41-50
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Merritt K, Shafer J W, Brown S A. Implant site infection rates with porous and dense materials.  J Biomed Mater Res . 1979;  13 101-108
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Zimmerli W, Waldvogel F A, Vaudaux P, Nydegger U E. Pathogenesis of foreign body infection: Description and characteristics of an animal model.  J Infect Dis . 1982;  146 487-497
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Klock J C, Bainton D F. Degranulation and abnormal bactericidal function of granulocytes precured by reversible adhesion to nylon wool.  Blood . 1976;  48 149-161
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Klock J C, Stossel T P. Detection, pathogenesis and prevention of damage to human granulocytes caused by interaction with nylon wool fiber: Implications for filtration leukapheresis.  J Clin Invest . 1977;  60 1183-1190
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Davis P KB, Jones S M. The complications of silastic implants.  Br J Plast Surg . 1971;  24 405-411
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Mackay I S, Bull T R. The fate of silastic in the management of saddle deformity in the nose.  J Laryngol Otol . 1983;  97 43-47
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Jobe R, Iverson R, Vistnes L. Bone deformation beneath alloplastic implants.  Plast Reconstr Surg . 1973;  51 169-175
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Friedland J A, Coccaro P J, Converse J M. Retrospective cephalometric analysis of mandibular bone absorption under silicone rubber chin implants.  Plast Reconstr Surg . 1976;  57 144-151
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Stucker F J. Use of implantation in facial deformities.  Laryngoscope . 1977;  87 1523-1528
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Colton J J, Beekhuis G J. Use of Mersilene mesh in nasal augmentation.  Facial Plast Surg . 1992;  8 149-156
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Gross E J, Hamilton M M, Ackerman K, Perkins S W. Mersilene mesh chin augmentation. A 14 year experience.  Arch Facial Plast Surg . 1999;  1 183-189
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Romo T, Sclafani A P, Sabini P. Use of porous high-density polyethylene in revision rhinoplasty and in the platyrrhine nose.  Aesth Plast Surg . 1998;  22 211-221
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Whear N M, Cousley R RJ, Liew C, Henderson D. Post-operative infection of Proplast facial implants.  Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg . 1993;  31 292-295
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Schliephake H, Neukam F W, Klosa D. Influence of pore dimensions on bone ingrowth into porous hydroxyapatite blocks used as bone graft substitutes. A histometric study.  Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg . 1991;  20 53-58
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Dagli A S, Akalin Y, Bilgili H, Seckin S, Ensari S. Correction of saddle nose deformities by coral implantation.  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol . 1997;  254 274-276
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Byrd H S, Hobar P C. Alloplastic nasal and perialar augmentation.  Clin Plast Surg . 1996;  23 315-326
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Sachs M E. Revision Rhinoplasty: An Exploration of the Craft. New York; Springer-Verlag, Inc., in press
    Google Scholar
      >