Post-operative infection of proplast facial implants

U-shaped osteotomy in management of paranasal deficiency

“…It is still often difficult to achieve symmetry 4 . Alloplastic materials are expensive and more prone to infection and rejection than autologous ones 1,5,12,13 . Both types tend to project the paranasal areas laterally but not inferiorly unless massive dis-insertion of the muscles is performed.…”

“…Classic ancillary procedures of onlay paranasal grafting are insufficient to correct all deficient aspects (paranasal, nasal spine, nasal base) in this area [1][2][3][5][6][7]9,10,12,13,15 . The materials used are usually expensive when alloplastic, or cause donor site morbidity when autologous.…”

Medpor in maxillofacial deformities: report of three cases

“…They do not promote tissue ingrowth and cause capsulation and migration of the implant [4]. Encapsulation and predisposition to movement are responsible for the majority of late complications reported with smooth surface implants [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]. Hydroxyapatite biomaterial for cranial vault reconstruction shows no tissue or bone ingrowth [14].…”

Imaging of Cosmetic Facial Implants and Grafts

“…33,34 On histology, intracytoplasmatic phagocytosis of disintegrated implant material is characteristic. Cross-sectional imaging can reveal ill-defined soft tissue surrounding the implants (Fig 14).…”

“…31,32 Proplast (Vitek, Valencia, California) Teflon (Dupont, Wilmington, Delaware), which is an ultraporous composite material, has fallen out of use due to the relatively high incidence of complications, such as infection, which are reported to occur in 16% of cases. 33 Implant infections can manifest as cellulitis, abscess, draining sinuses, and/or osteomyelitis. MR imaging is particularly sensitive for delineating the extent of the infections, especially early in the course of disease.…”