Foreign body reactions related to orofacial esthetic fillers: A systematic review

Abstract

The aim of this study was to systematically review the clinicopathological data regarding foreign body reactions (FBR) related to esthetic procedures in the orofacial region. Electronic searches were performed in six databases and in gray literature using PEO acronym for the review question. Case series and case reports describing FBR related to esthetic procedures in the orofacial region were included. The JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist–University of Adelaide tool was used for measuring the risk of bias. Eighty‐six studies reporting 139 cases of FBR were identified. The mean age at diagnosis was 54.12 years (14–85 years), with most of the cases reported in America, North America (n = 42/30.70%) and Latin America (n = 33/23.60%), mainly occurring in women (n = 131/94.40%). Asymptomatic (n = 60/43.40%) nodules (n = 71/50.60%) were the main clinical characteristics. The lower lip represented the most affected anatomical location (n = 28/22.20%), followed by the upper lip (n = 27/21.60%). Surgical removal was the treatment of choice (n = 53/35.70%). Twelve different dermal fillers were reported in the study, and the microscopic characteristics of the cases varied according to the material used. The results based on case series and case reports showed that nodule and swelling were the main clinical characteristics of FBR related to orofacial esthetic fillers. The histological characteristics depended on the type of the filler material used.

Filler Migration after Facial Injection—A Narrative Review

“…HA filler show hyperintense signals on T2 W sequences and hypointense signals on T1 W sequences because of their water binding capacity. In contrast, CaH shows low to intermediate signals, and PDLLA T2 W images are hypointense [98].…”