Chin Augmentation

Choe, Kyle S.; Stucki-McCormick, Suzanne U.

doi:10.1055/s-2000-7325

Cited by 47 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 28 publications

(63 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These studies clearly show that the ex ova CAM response to silicone is similar to that seen in mammalian tissue and support the validity of the ex ova CAM as a model of mammalian tissue reactions to biomaterials and bioimplants. 16,17…”

Section: -15mentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Ex ova chick chorioallantoic membrane as a novel model for evaluation of tissue responses to biomaterials and implants

Klueh

Dorsky

Moussy

et al. 2003

J Biomedical Materials Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the major obstacles in developing rationale strategies to control inflammation and fibrosis surrounding implants is the lack of a simple and inexpensive in vivo model to screen tissue reactions to various biomaterials and implants. To begin to fill this gap, we have developed an ex ova model of the chick embryo chorioallantoic membrane (CAM) for testing of tissue reaction to biomaterials and implants. For these studies, we evaluated tissue reactions (inflammation and fibrosis) to two commonly used biomaterials (nylon and silastic) grossly and histologically in the ex ova CAM. Nylon mesh was incorporated within the CAM tissue 4 days postplacement. After 8 days postplacement, the nylon mesh was totally incorporated into the CAM. Histologically, little or no inflammation was seen associated with the incorporated nylon mesh at any time point. In the case of silastic tubing, significant incorporation of the CAM was seen grossly by 1-2 days postplacement. Incorporation of the tubing continued at day 8 postplacement of the silastic tubing, with ingrowth of the CAM into the lumen of the tubing. Histological evaluation of CAMs indicated that no significant tissue reactions (inflammation or fibrosis) occurred in the CAM tissue surrounding the silastic tubing or in the CAM tissue and vasculature that had grown into the silastic tubing. To our knowledge, this report represents the first investigation of the usage of the ex ova CAM model, a shell-less chick embryo model (ex ova), as an in vivo model to test the tissue reactions to biomaterials and implants.

show abstract

Section: -15mentioning

confidence: 98%

“…16,17 To evaluate silicone reactivity in our ex ova model, 0.5-to 1-cmlong medical grade silastic tubing (0.0301 cm ID ϫ 0.064 cm OD; Dow Corning, Midland, MI) was steam sterilized before placement on 7-day-old CAMs. The silastic tubing was coated before placement by dipping the tubing in egg white.…”

Section: Nylon Meshmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ex ova chick chorioallantoic membrane as a novel model for evaluation of tissue responses to biomaterials and implants

Klueh

Dorsky

Moussy

et al. 2003

J Biomedical Materials Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this process, fixing the material was caused by in growth of fibrous tissue within several months. Despite these advantageous, severe inflammatory responses were raised by the recipient body [1,5,6]. Although Gore-Tex or polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) was not accompanied with extrusion or degradation, its elasticity was not enough to be shaped properly for the nose.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Porous high-density polyethylene in facial reconstruction and revision rhinoplasty: a prospective cohort study

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionInitial methods which used human tissues as reconstruction materials caused different problems including rejection, limited shapes and infection. In 1970s, PHDPE (Medpor®) was introduced by its exclusive advantageous including no donor site morbidity, easily shaped and the minimal foreign body reaction. Hereby, we report our experience of using Medpor® in facial reconstruction especially in frontal reconstruction and orbital rim with a large sample size.MethodsThis study was a prospective cohort study. Surgical techniques included using Medpor® in reconstruction of lamina papiracea (LP) (15 patients), frontal bone (15 patients), orbital rim (18 patients) and open rhinoplasty (8 patients). All interventions on LP were performed by endoscopic procedures. All frontal operations were carried out by bicoronal incision. In orbital defects, we used subciliary incision.ResultsFrom all 56 patients, 1 case had primitive neuroectodermal tumor (PNET) of maxillary sinus. In that case, reconstruction of inferior orbital rim was not successful and extrusion was occurred after radiotherapy. In rhinoplasty and other experiences no extrusion or infection were detected within the next 1 to 3 years of follow up. There were not any palpable and visible irregularities under the skin in our experiences.ConclusionsIn this study the patients did not experience any complications during the follow up periods and the satisfaction was remarkable. Gathering these data gives rise to future review studies which can provide more organized evidences for replacing classic reconstructive methods by the presented material.

show abstract

“…There are various procedures to augment the chin, such as using alloplastic implants (Friedland et al, 1976;Feuerstein, 1978;Flowers, 1991;Harada et al, 1993;Gubisch and Kotzur, 1998), chin osteotomies and grafting techniques with costal bone or nasal cartilage grafts (Hofer, 1942;Trauner and Obwegeser, 1957;Koele, 1961;Safian, 1966;Adams, 1987;Davis, 1983;Stambaugh, 1992;Allcroft et al, 1994;Bujia, 1994;Glasgold and Glasgold, 1994;Converse, 1950;Karacaoglan et al, 1998;Karras and Wolford, 1998;Choe, 2000;Mottura, 2002). The use of the nasal hump and septal cartilage has already been described by Aufricht (1934Aufricht ( , 1958.…”

Section: Objectivesmentioning

confidence: 98%

Atypical cyst formation following chin augmentation using a nasal osteocartilaginous graft

Lazar¹,

Hausen

Mischkowski³

et al. 2006

Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Chin Augmentation

Cited by 47 publications

References 28 publications

Ex ova chick chorioallantoic membrane as a novel model for evaluation of tissue responses to biomaterials and implants

Ex ova chick chorioallantoic membrane as a novel model for evaluation of tissue responses to biomaterials and implants

Porous high-density polyethylene in facial reconstruction and revision rhinoplasty: a prospective cohort study

Atypical cyst formation following chin augmentation using a nasal osteocartilaginous graft

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About