Helena Baecher , Alexandra Scheiflinger , Katya Remy , Niklas Straub , Bhagvat Maheta , Khalil Sherwani , Can Deniz , Samuel Knoedler , Ali-Farid Safi , Martin Kauke-Navarro , Max Heiland , Leonard Knoedler
{"title":"From Novel Facial Measurements to Facial Implantology: A Systematic Review","authors":"Helena Baecher , Alexandra Scheiflinger , Katya Remy , Niklas Straub , Bhagvat Maheta , Khalil Sherwani , Can Deniz , Samuel Knoedler , Ali-Farid Safi , Martin Kauke-Navarro , Max Heiland , Leonard Knoedler","doi":"10.1016/j.jpra.2024.10.005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Facial implants have emerged as pivotal tools for both reconstructive and aesthetic skull bone augmentation. Contemporary manufacturing techniques, such as computer-aided design and manufacturing (CAD-CAM) systems, have revolutionized facial implants production, providing the advantages of high-level individualization. However, the absence of standardized facial measurements complicates the ability to accurately compare outcomes across various techniques. This systematic review investigates the strengths and limitations of various facial measurements employed in facial implants, with a particular focus on their impact on aesthetic outcomes and potential complications.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We identified 13 studies in our comprehensive search across PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>In total, 620 patients were included. The majority of the chosen studies focused on aesthetic purposes (69%). Primarily, mandibular (46%) or nasal regions (23%) were investigated, with porous polyethylene (31%), silicone (23%), and polyetheretherketone (23%) being the most utilized materials. Despite considerable heterogeneity in measurement approaches, including variations in reference points and angles, complications such as surgical site infections and nerve-related injuries were reported in the included studies.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Our review highlights the importance of standardized facial analysis for optimal implant planning. Future research should prioritize the development of uniform measurement concepts tailored to diverse implant applications to enhance outcomes and patient satisfaction in facial implantation.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":37996,"journal":{"name":"JPRAS Open","volume":"43 ","pages":"Pages 1-17"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JPRAS Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352587824001554","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
Facial implants have emerged as pivotal tools for both reconstructive and aesthetic skull bone augmentation. Contemporary manufacturing techniques, such as computer-aided design and manufacturing (CAD-CAM) systems, have revolutionized facial implants production, providing the advantages of high-level individualization. However, the absence of standardized facial measurements complicates the ability to accurately compare outcomes across various techniques. This systematic review investigates the strengths and limitations of various facial measurements employed in facial implants, with a particular focus on their impact on aesthetic outcomes and potential complications.
Methods
We identified 13 studies in our comprehensive search across PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases.
Results
In total, 620 patients were included. The majority of the chosen studies focused on aesthetic purposes (69%). Primarily, mandibular (46%) or nasal regions (23%) were investigated, with porous polyethylene (31%), silicone (23%), and polyetheretherketone (23%) being the most utilized materials. Despite considerable heterogeneity in measurement approaches, including variations in reference points and angles, complications such as surgical site infections and nerve-related injuries were reported in the included studies.
Conclusion
Our review highlights the importance of standardized facial analysis for optimal implant planning. Future research should prioritize the development of uniform measurement concepts tailored to diverse implant applications to enhance outcomes and patient satisfaction in facial implantation.
背景面部植入物已成为重建和美学颅骨增量的重要工具。计算机辅助设计和制造(CAD-CAM)系统等现代制造技术彻底改变了面部植入物的生产,提供了高度个性化的优势。然而,由于缺乏标准化的面部测量方法,因此无法准确比较各种技术的效果。这篇系统性综述研究了面部植入物中采用的各种面部测量方法的优势和局限性,尤其关注它们对美学效果和潜在并发症的影响。方法我们在PubMed/MEDLINE、Web of Science、EMBASE和CENTRAL数据库中进行了全面搜索,确定了13项研究。所选研究大多以美学为目的(69%)。研究对象主要是下颌(46%)或鼻腔(23%),使用最多的材料是多孔聚乙烯(31%)、硅胶(23%)和聚醚醚酮(23%)。尽管测量方法存在相当大的差异,包括参考点和角度的不同,但所纳入的研究都报告了手术部位感染和神经相关损伤等并发症。未来的研究应优先发展适合不同植入应用的统一测量概念,以提高面部植入的效果和患者满意度。
期刊介绍:
JPRAS Open is an international, open access journal dedicated to publishing case reports, short communications, and full-length articles. JPRAS Open will provide the most current source of information and references in plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery. The Journal is based on the continued need to improve surgical care by providing highlights in general reconstructive surgery; cleft lip, palate and craniofacial surgery; head and neck surgery; skin cancer; breast surgery; hand surgery; lower limb trauma; burns; and aesthetic surgery. The Journal will provide authors with fast publication times.