Bone resorption after alloplastic augmentation of the mandible

Abstract

Augmentation mentoplasty is a commonly performed operation especially in conjunction with rhinoplasty. While various materials have previously been used for this procedure, silastic has been the implant of choice for the last three decades. Concerns have been raised due to the occurrence of bone resorption beneath these implants. Controversy prevails as to the cause and the long-term effects of the resorption. It has been suggested by some that the resorption is self-limiting although this has not been confirmed in clinical studies. In total, 40 patients with silastic implants, who had a mean follow-up of 20 months (8-60 months), were studied radiologically. In 21 of them (52%), a degree of resorption from 0.5 to 2 mm was observed. Spearman's rank correlation showed a statistically significant relationship between the degree of resorption and the time lapse since surgery (P = 0.048).

Chin shield osteotomy – a new genioplasty technique avoiding a deep mento-labial fold in order to increase the labial competence

“…Alloplastic material can cause massive bone resorption due to pressure on the adjacent implant-bearing bone 11,12,14,17 , while autologous bone is replaced with newly formed vital bone within a short time 13 .…”

Evaluation of porous vitreous carbon or silicon implants by radiology in rat's skull

“…The silicon does not present osseous integration, and may even cause bone resorption as a radiological study that assessed their location and method of implantation 13,14 .…”

Silicone Facial Implants, to Fixate or Not to Fixate: A Narrative Review

“…The number of patients included ranged in each study from 2 to 601 patients, for a total of 1,051 patients. The total number of patients who had fixated implants was 799 (76.02%) [11,12,15,16], and 252 patients (23.97%) had nonfixated implants [8,9,14,[17][18][19][20]. The number of implants based on implant site was 933 in the chin (81.05%) [9,12,[14][15][16][17][18][19][20], 160 in the malar region (13.90%) [8,16], and 58 (5.03%) as angle implants [11].…”

“…The total number of patients who had fixated implants was 799 (76.02%) [11,12,15,16], and 252 patients (23.97%) had nonfixated implants [8,9,14,[17][18][19][20]. The number of implants based on implant site was 933 in the chin (81.05%) [9,12,[14][15][16][17][18][19][20], 160 in the malar region (13.90%) [8,16], and 58 (5.03%) as angle implants [11]. Follow-up periods ranged from one month to 17 years, except for two case series studies where follow-up periods were not reported [18,19].…”

“…The total number of patients with nonfixated (nonstabilized) implants was 252 (23.97%) [8,9,14,[17][18][19][20]. The average complication rate with nonfixated facial implants was 23.41%.…”