In an attempt to maintain a youthful appearance or to reconstruct facial deformities, physicians have greeted new technologies with excitement. In the late 1800 s, shortly after the invention of the syringe, chemical agents were used for facial augmentation. Unfortunately, history has taught us that new technologies must be used with care, because complications can occur, sometimes many years after initial treatment. The first injectable filling agent was paraffin, whose use was abandoned after complications of migration, embolization, and granuloma formation were described. More recently, silicone use was banned by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) because of similar complications. In 1981, bovine collagen was the first agent to be approved by the FDA for cosmetic injection. Since its approval, dozens of injectable filling agents have been developed, and many are already FDA approved for cosmetic use. This article will review the highlights of the evolution of facial filling agents.
Drawings from memory of a penny, nickel, dime, and quarter were obtained from 125 undergraduates. The modal recalls for the heads of all four coins were identical, suggesting that a schema for coins exists. In an attempt to have the schema produced directly, another 75 students designed either a 2-, 7-, or 20-cent piece that would fit into our present currency. The modal drawing for this task was identical to the modal recalls. The schema for the heads derived from these experiments differs from existing coins and is not an average of them.
IMPORTANCE Body dysmorphic disorder (BDD) is a relative contraindication for facial plastic surgery, but formal screening is not common in practice. The prevalence of BDD in patients seeking facial plastic surgery is not well documented.OBJECTIVE To establish the prevalence of BDD across facial plastic and oculoplastic surgery practice settings, and estimate the ability of surgeons to screen for BDD. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This multicenter prospective study recruited a cohort of 597 patients who presented to academic and private facial plastic and oculoplastic surgery practices from March 2015 to February 2016. METHODS All patients were screened for BDD using the Body Dysmorphic Disorder Questionnaire (BDDQ). After each clinical encounter, surgeons independently evaluated the likelihood that a participating patient had BDD. Validated instruments were used to assess satisfaction with facial appearance including the FACE-Q, Blepharoplasty Outcomes Evaluation (BOE), Facelift Outcomes Evaluation (FOE), Rhinoplasty Outcomes Evaluation (ROE), and Skin Rejuvenation Outcomes Evaluation (SROE). RESULTS Across participating practices (9 surgeons, 3 sites), a total of 597 patients were screened for BDD: 342 patients from site 1 (mean [SD] age, 44.2 [16.5] years); 158 patients, site 2 (mean [SD] age, 46.0 [16.2] years), site 3, 97 patients (mean [SD] age, 56.3 [15.5] years). Overall, 58 patients [9.7%] screened positive for BDD by the BDDQ instrument, while only 16 of 402 patients [4.0%] were clinically suspected of BDD by surgeons. A higher percentage of patients presenting for cosmetic surgery (37 of 283 patients [13.1%]) compared with those presenting for reconstructive surgery (21 of 314 patients [6.7%]) screened positive on the BDDQ (odds ratio, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.20-3.68; P = .01). Surgeons were only able to correctly identify 2 of 43 patients (4.7%) who screened positive for BDD on the BDDQ, and the positive likelihood ratio was only 1.19 (95% CI, 0.28-5.07). Patients screening positive for BDD by the BDDQ had lower satisfaction with their appearance as measured by the FACE-Q, ROE, BOE, SROE, and FOE.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Body dysmorphic disorder is a relatively common condition across facial plastic and oculoplastic surgery practice settings. Patients who screen positive on the BDDQ have lower satisfaction with their facial appearance at baseline. Surgeons have a poor ability to screen for patients with BDD when compared with validated screening instruments such as the BDDQ. Routine implementation of validated BDD screening instruments may improve patient care.LEVEL OF EVIDENCE NA.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with đź’™ for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.