Dental and Medical Problems

Dent Med Probl
Index Copernicus (ICV 2021) – 132.50
MEiN – 70 pts
CiteScore (2021) – 2.0
JCI (2021) – 0.5
Average rejection rate (2022) – 79.69%
ISSN 1644-387X (print)
ISSN 2300-9020 (online)
Periodicity – quarterly

Download PDF

Dental and Medical Problems

2018, vol. 55, nr 4, October-December, p. 367–370

doi: 10.17219/dmp/99531

Publication type: original article

Language: English

Download citation:

  • BIBTEX (JabRef, Mendeley)
  • RIS (Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero)

Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 3.0 Open Access

Mandibular angle augmentation using solid silicone implants

Zwiększenie kąta żuchwy przy użyciu stałych implantów silikonowych

Badr Al-Jandan1,A,B,C,D,E,F, Hesham Fathi Marei1,2,C,D,E,F

1 Department of Biomedical Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, Saudi Arabia

2 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Suez Canal University, Ismailia, Egypt

Abstract

Background. The demand for facial esthetics has increased dramatically to overcome the ongoing aging process and/or improve facial appearance.
Objectives. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of using bilateral silicone implants for mandibular angle augmentation.
Material and Methods. The study involved a prospective analysis of the outcomes of the mandibular angle region augmentation with bilateral silicone implants in 58 patients (2 males and 56 females) within 1 year. All the data was collected either from patients’ interviews or their records, after receiving the ethical approval from the relevant hospital. The collected patients’ data was analyzed based on 3 main outcomes: occurrence of implant displacement, presence of postoperative infection and patient satisfaction. Only the patients who completed a follow-up of 6 months postoperatively were included in this study.
Results. A total of 58 patients received bilateral silicone implants at the mandibular angle with a total of 116 implants, out of which 96 were found intact, with no evidence of complications. The total number of implants that were infected was 5 (4.3%), 16 implants were found displaced (13.8%) and only 3 patients of those without complications were dissatisfied with the final facial appearance (6%).
Conclusion. Using solid silicone implants in the augmentation of the mandibular angle resulted in low postoperative infection and displacement rates, as well as in high patient satisfaction.

Key words

reconstructive surgery, solid silicone implants, mandibular angle augmentation

Słowa kluczowe

chirurgia plastyczna, stałe implanty silikonowe, zwiększenie kąta żuchwy

References (16)

  1. D’souza R, Kini A, D’souza H, Shetty N, Shetty O. Enhancing facial aesthetics with muscle retraining exercises – a review. J Clin Diagn Res. 2014;8:9–11.
  2. Engstrom C, Hollender L, Lindqvist S. Jaw morphology in edentulous individuals: A radiographic cephalometric study. J Oral Rehabil. 1985;12:451–460.
  3. Ousterhout DK. Mandibular angle augmentation and reduction. Clin Plast Surg. 1991;18:153–161.
  4. Aiache AE. Mandibular angle implants. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 1992;16:349–354.
  5. Ridwan-Pramana A, Wolff J, Raziei A, Ashton-James CE, Forouzanfar T. Porous polyethylene implants in facial reconstruction: Outcome and complications. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2015;43:1330–1334.
  6. Binder WJ, Azizzadeh B. Malar and submalar augmentation. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am. 2008;16:11–32.
  7. Constantinides MS, Galli SK, Miller PJ, Adamson PA. Malar, submalar, and midfacial implants. Facial Plast Surg. 2000;16:35–44.
  8. Anger J, Alcalde RF, de Campos JR. The use of soft silicone solid implant molded intraoperatively for pectus excavatum surgical repair. Einstein (São Paulo). 2014;12:186–190.
  9. Niamtu J III. Cosmetic Facial Surgery. 1st ed. London, UK: Elsevier; 2011:369–433.
  10. Polo M. Bone resorption under chin implants: The orthodontist’s role in its diagnosis and management. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2017;151:201–208.
  11. Hasson O, Levi G, Conley R. Late infections associated with alloplastic facial implants. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2007;65:321–323.
  12. Terino EO, Edwards MC. Customizing jawlines: The art of alloplastic premandible contouring. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am. 2008;16:99–122.
  13. Yaremchuck MJ. Facial skeletal reconstruction using porous polyethylene implants. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003;111:1818–1827.
  14. Aynehchi BB, Burstein DH, Parhiscar A, Erlich MA. Vertical incision intraoral silicone chin augmentation. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2012;146:553–559.
  15. Gui L, Huang L, Zhang Z. Genioplasty and chin augmentation with Medpore implants: A report of 650 cases. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2008;32:220–226.
  16. Carboni A, Cerulli G, Perugini M, Renzi G, Becelli R. Long-term follow-up of 105 porous polyethylene implants used to correct facial deformity. Eur J Plast Surg. 2002;25:310–314.
© Wroclaw Medical University