Cosmetic-Related Changes on 18F-FDG PET/CT

Ho, Linh; Seto, John; Ngo, Vincent; Vuu, Harvard; Wassef, Heidi

doi:10.1097/rlu.0b013e31824c5ef5

Cited by 8 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In spite of the fact that neither CT nor MRI shows specific patterns for identifying PAAG or high‐density HA deposits, the knowledge of the extent of the deposits can be useful. On the other hand, fillers can also produce hypercaptation areas on positron emission tomography–CT due to inflammation, which may generate false‐positive findings or at least difficulties for the correct staging of a malignancy 34 …”

Section: Other Imaging Methods For Identifying Cosmetic Fillersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identification and Complications of Cosmetic Fillers

Wortsman

2015

J of Ultrasound Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cosmetic fillers are frequently used these days for enhancing beauty and to treat wrinkles or sagging skin. However, information on the history of injections may be difficult to obtain, and there is a growing number of reports on complications with these agents. In contrast to other imaging techniques, sonography has been successfully used for detecting and identifying common types of cosmetic fillers and has become the first‐line imaging modality to deal with these exogenous components.

show abstract

Section: Other Imaging Methods For Identifying Cosmetic Fillersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identification and Complications of Cosmetic Fillers

Wortsman

2015

J of Ultrasound Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Twelve articles received a score of 4, with an excellent presentation of the reported cases. 10 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Nineteen articles scored 3.5, 9 20 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 primarily due to a lack of confirmation by a dermatologist or cosmetic surgeon of the history and type of procedure done.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Among the 53 cosmetic procedures, 8 (15.0%) were silicone injections 13 24 26 28 32 2 (3.8%) were silicone implants, 30 39 6 (11.3%) were paraffin injections, 25 31 10 (18.9%) were fat injections, 15 20 22 34 35 40 4 (7.5%) were gold wires, 9 18 27 38 14 (26.4%) involved calcium hydroxyapatite (CaHa), 10 14 19 21 29 33 37 41 1 (1.9%) was an autogenous costochondral graft, 36 4 (7.5%) involved polyalkylimide gel, 17 and 4 (7.54%) involved hyaluronic acid. 16 23 The cases mostly presented with either swelling (18/53, 34.0%) or no symptoms (15/53, 28.3%), and were found incidentally (19/53, 35.8%). The material was usually bilateral (42/53, 79.2%) and in the cheek and zygoma area (35/53, 66.0%).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical and radiographic features of facial cosmetic materials: A systematic review

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The aim of this study was to systematically screen the literature for studies reporting cosmetic material in the oral and maxillofacial complex to shed light on the types of cosmetic materials, their radiographic appearance, and possible complications. Materials and Methods Five electronic databases were reviewed for eligible studies. The general search terms were “cosmetic,” “filler,” “face,” and “radiograph.” Demographics, material types, clinical and radiographic presentation, and complications were recorded. Results Thirty-one studies with 53 cases met the inclusion criteria. The mean age was 52.6±15.4 years with a 4 : 3 female-to-male ratio. The most common material was calcium hydroxyapatite (CaHa) (n=14, 26.4%), found incidentally. The materials were generally located within the upper cheek and zygoma (n=35, 66.0%), radiographically well-defined (n=44, 83%), and had no effects on the surrounding structures (n=27, 50.9%). The internal structure was radiopaque (calcification, hyperdensity) for gold wires, CaHa, bone implants, and secondary calcification or ossification. Outdated cosmetic materials or non-conservative techniques were infiltrative, had effects on the surrounding structures, and presented with clinical signs, symptoms, or complications. Conclusion Conventional radiography, cone-beam computed tomography, and multi-detector computed tomography are useful to differentiate several cosmetic materials. Their magnetic resonance imaging appearance was highly variable. The infrequent inclusion of cosmetic materials in the differential diagnosis implies that medical and dental specialists may be unfamiliar with the radiographic appearance of these materials in the face.

show abstract

“…On CT, HA fillers appear as areas of soft tissue attenuation. On PET-CT, they are occasionally FDG-avid [ 55 ].…”

Section: Types Of Facial Fillers and Normal Imaging Featuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although FDG CT/MRI is not an imaging modality of choice for the detection of filler-related complications, it is increasingly used for the detection of a source of infection and inflammation, sarcoidosis, and large vessel vasculitis. The increased cost of treating multi-drug resistant infections in immune-compromised patients, diabetics, and elderly patients justifies the use of expensive PET-CT. FDG PET-CT is very sensitive but lacks the specificity to differentiate aseptic inflammation from septic infection [ 55 , 81 , 82 ].…”

Section: Pitfalls In Image Interpretationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Injectable facial fillers: imaging features, complications, and diagnostic pitfalls at MRI and PET CT

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Injectable fillers are widely used for facial rejuvenation, correction of disabling volumetric fat loss in HIV-associated facial lipoatrophy, Romberg disease, and post-traumatic facial disfiguring. The purpose of this article is to acquaint the reader with the anatomy of facial fat compartments, as well as with the properties and key imaging features of commonly used facial fillers, filler-related complications, interpretation pitfalls, and dermatologic conditions mimicking filler-related complications. The distribution of facial fillers is characteristic and depends on the anatomy of the superficial fat compartments. Silicone has signature MRI features, calcium hydroxyapatite has characteristic calcifications, whereas other injectable fillers have overlapping imaging features. Most fillers (hyaluronic acid, collagen, and polyalkylimide–polyacrylamide hydrogels) have signal intensity patterns compatible with high water content. On PET-CT, most fillers show physiologic high FDG uptake, which should not be confounded with pathology. Abscess, cellulitis, non-inflammatory nodules, and foreign body granulomas are the most common filler-related complications, and imaging can help in the differential diagnosis. Diffusion weighted imaging helps in detecting a malignant lesion masked by injected facial fillers. Awareness of imaging features of facial fillers and their complications helps to avoid misinterpretation of MRI, and PET-CT scans and facilitates therapeutic decisions in unclear clinical cases.Key points• Facial fillers are common incidental findings on MRI and PET-CT scans. • They have a characteristic appearance and typical anatomic distribution • Although considered as safe, facial filler injections are associated with several complications • As they may mask malignancy, knowledge of typical imaging features is mandatory. • MRI is a problem-solving tool for unclear cases.

show abstract

Cosmetic-Related Changes on 18F-FDG PET/CT

Cited by 8 publications

References 4 publications

Identification and Complications of Cosmetic Fillers

Identification and Complications of Cosmetic Fillers

Clinical and radiographic features of facial cosmetic materials: A systematic review

Injectable facial fillers: imaging features, complications, and diagnostic pitfalls at MRI and PET CT

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About