Download PDF
Facial Plast Surg 2021; 37(04): 536-542
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1725164
Original Research

Non-Hyaluronic Acid Fillers for Midface Augmentation: A Systematic Review

Lily N. Trinh 
1   Department of Otolaryngology—Head and Surgery, School of Medicine, Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana
,
Amar Gupta 
2   Department of Otolaryngology—Head and Surgery, St. Elizabeth's Medical Center, Brighton, Massachusetts
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

There has been an increasing role in the use of injectable fillers for rejuvenation of the aging face. In this systematic review, we aim to evaluate the existing literature related to soft tissue fillers of the midface. Specifically, we focus on the non-hyaluronic acid fillers including polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA), poly-L-lactic acid (PLLA), calcium hydroxyapatite (CaHA), and autologous fat. A systematic review was conducted in November 2020 in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines with PubMed and Embase databases. Medical Subject Headings terms used were “cheek” OR “midface” OR “malar” and “filler” OR “poly-L-lactic acid” OR “calcium hydroxyapatite,” “autologous fat” OR “polymethylmethacrylate” OR “Artefill” OR “Bellafill” OR “Radiesse” OR “Sculptra.” The initial search identified 271 articles. After 145 duplicates were removed, 126 studies were screened for relevance by title and abstract. A total of 114 studies were eliminated based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Twelve articles underwent full-text review. Seven articles were included in the final analysis consisting of four non-hyaluronic filler products: PMMA, PLLA, CaHA, autologous fat. Most patients were highly satisfied with their results. Due to the gradual volumizing effects of PMMA, PLLA, and CaHA, patient satisfaction generally improved over time. Minor adverse reactions related to treatment included bruising, swelling, and pain. Nodule formation was reported in PLLA and CaHA studies. For autologous fat, 32% of the original injection volume remained at 16 months post-treatment, which still provided clinically improved malar enhancement. Dermal fillers are an attractive treatment option for the aging face due to their high patient satisfaction, long-lasting effects, and low side-effect profile. Patients should be appropriately counseled on the delayed effects of non-HA fillers. Autologous fat is a good option in many patients with the major drawback of unpredictable longevity, which may require a secondary procedure. Future studies should examine the longevity and long-term side effects of these fillers.

Keywords

facial filler - autologous fat - midface augmentation - cheek - rejuvenation


Publication History

Article published online:
01 March 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 American Society of Plastic Surgeons Plastic Surgery Statistics Report. Accessed November 7, 2020 at: https://www.plasticsurgery.org/news/plastic-surgery-statistics
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 DeFatta RJ, Williams III EF. Evolution of midface rejuvenation. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2009; 11 (01) 6-12
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 DeFatta RJ, Williams III EF. Midface lifting: current standards. Facial Plast Surg 2011; 27 (01) 77-85
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Pontius AT, Williams III EF. The evolution of midface rejuvenation: combining the midface-lift and fat transfer. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2006; 8 (05) 300-305
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Coleman SR, Grover R. The anatomy of the aging face: volume loss and changes in 3-dimensional topography. Aesthet Surg J 2006; 26 (suppl 1S): S4-S9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Macierzyńska A, Pierzchała E, Placek W. Volumetric techniques: three-dimensional midface modeling. Postepy Dermatol Alergol 2014; 31 (06) 388-391
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Pontius AT, Chaiet SR, Williams III EF. Midface injectable fillers: have they replaced midface surgery?. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 2013; 21 (02) 229-239
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Hartstein M, Wulc A, Holck D. eds. Midfacial Rejuvenation. New York, NY: Springer; 2012
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Stein R, Holds JB, Wulc AE, Swift A, Hartstein ME. Phi, fat, and the mathematics of a beautiful midface. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 2018; 34 (05) 491-496
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Jacono AA, Ransom ER. Anatomic predictors of unsatisfactory outcomes in surgical rejuvenation of the midface. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2013; 15 (02) 101-109
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Attenello NH, Maas CS. Injectable fillers: review of material and properties. Facial Plast Surg 2015; 31 (01) 29-34
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Urdiales-Gálvez F, Delgado NE, Figueiredo V. et al. Preventing the complications associated with the use of dermal fillers in facial aesthetic procedures: an expert group consensus report. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2017; 41 (03) 667-677
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Glasgold RA, Glasgold MJ, Lam SM. Complications following fat transfer. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am 2009; 21 (01) 53-58 , vi
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Ramirez O. The “Ogee” of the Midface: Aesthetic and Technical Considerations. In: Hartstein ME, Wulc AE, Holck DEE. eds. Midfacial Rejuvenation. New York, NY: Springer; 2012
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Linkov G, Mally P, Czyz CN, Wulc AE. Quantification of the aesthetically desirable female midface position. Aesthet Surg J 2018; 38 (03) 231-240
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Jacono AA, Rousso JJ. An algorithmic approach to multimodality midfacial rejuvenation using a new classification system for midfacial aging. Clin Plast Surg 2015; 42 (01) 17-32
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Mills DC, Camp S, Mosser S, Sayeg A, Hurwitz D, Ronel D. Malar augmentation with a polymethylmethacrylate-enhanced filler: assessment of a 12-month open-label pilot study. Aesthet Surg J 2013; 33 (03) 421-430
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Byun SY, Seo KIL, Shin JW. et al. Objective analysis of poly-L-lactic acid injection efficacy in different settings. Dermatol Surg 2015; 41 (Suppl. 01) S314-S320
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Chen HH, Javadi P, Daines SM, Williams III EF. Quantitative assessment of the longevity of poly-L-lactic acid as a volumizing filler using 3-dimensional photography. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2015; 17 (01) 39-43
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Suh DH, Lee SJ, Kim SM, Lee JD, Kim HS. The safety and efficacy of poly-L-lactic acid on sunken cheeks in Asians. J Cosmet Laser Ther 2014; 16 (04) 180-184
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Moers-Carpi M, Storck R, Howell DJ, Ogilvie P, Ogilvie A. Physician and patient satisfaction after use of calcium hydroxylapatite for cheek augmentation. Dermatol Surg 2012; 38 (7 Pt 2): 1217-1222
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Beer K, Yohn M, Cohen J. Evaluation of injectable CaHA for the treatment of mid-face volume loss—PubMed. J Drugs Dermatol 2008; 7 (04) 369-466
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Meier JD, Glasgold RA, Glasgold MJ. Autologous fat grafting: long-term evidence of its efficacy in midfacial rejuvenation. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2009; 11 (01) 24-28
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Mendelson B, Wong C-H. Aesthetic Surgery of the Face, Anatomy of the Aging Face. 3rd ed. London: Elsevier; 2013
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Cohen SR, Berner CF, Busso M. et al. Five-year safety and efficacy of a novel polymethylmethacrylate aesthetic soft tissue filler for the correction of nasolabial folds. Dermatol Surg 2007; 33 (Suppl. 02) S222-S230
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Lemperle G, Romano JJ, Busso M. Soft tissue augmentation with artecoll: 10-year history, indications, techniques, and complications. Dermatol Surg 2003; 29 (06) 573-587 , discussion 587
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Ezzat WH, Keller GS. The use of poly-L-lactic acid filler in facial aesthetics. Facial Plast Surg 2011; 27 (06) 503-509
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Woerle B, Hanke CW, Sattler G. Poly-L-lactic acid: a temporary filler for soft tissue augmentation. J Drugs Dermatol 2004; 3 (04) 385-389
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Palm MD, Woodhall KE, Butterwick KJ, Goldman MP. Cosmetic use of poly-l-lactic acid: a retrospective study of 130 patients. Dermatol Surg 2010; 36 (02) 161-170
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Lowe NJ, Maxwell CA, Patnaik R. Adverse reactions to dermal fillers: review. Dermatol Surg 2005; 31 (11 Pt 2): 1616-1625
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Moy RL, Fincher EF. Poly-L-lactic acid for the aesthetic correction of facial volume loss. Aesthet Surg J 2005; 25 (06) 646-648
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Hubbard W. Injectable Calcium Hydroxlapatite Implants: Biocompatibility. San Mateo. 2012. Accessed November 2020
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Busso M, Karlsberg PL. Cheek augmentation and rejuvenation using injectable calcium hydroxylapatite (Radiesse®). Cosmet Dermatology 2006; 19: 583-588
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Greco TM, Antunes MB, Yellin SA. Injectable fillers for volume replacement in the aging face. Facial Plast Surg 2012; 28 (01) 8-20
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Coleman SR. Long-term survival of fat transplants: controlled demonstrations. Aesthetic Plast Surg 1995; 19 (05) 421-425
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Hörl HW, Feller AM, Biemer E. Technique for liposuction fat reimplantation and long-term volume evaluation by magnetic resonance imaging. Ann Plast Surg 1991; 26 (03) 248-258
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Fulton JE, Suarez M, Silverton K, Barnes T. Small volume fat transfer. Dermatol Surg 1998; 24 (08) 857-865
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar