Download PDF
Facial Plast Surg 2015; 31(01): 035-042
DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1544245
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Integrating Injectable Fillers and Fat in Facial Rejuvenation

Samuel M. Lam
1   Willow Bend Wellness Center, Plano, Texas
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
12 March 2015 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

This article focuses on the discussion of the risks, benefits, and limitations of the three principal methods for facial volumization: fat grafting, injectable fillers, and alloplastic implants. By understanding these issues, a surgeon can better discuss what would be ideal for a particular patient. Fat grafting offers, the most cost-effective solution to a patient with sufficient volume loss. Injectable fillers provide an easy, predictable, and accurate nonsurgical alternative that is scalable in cost. Alloplastic implants are more ideally used in individuals with skeletal rather than soft-tissue deficiencies or in younger patients where the soft-tissue envelope is sufficient to mask the implant.

Keywords

fat grafting - injectable filler - alloplastic implant - cannula - risks - benefits - limitations
 

  • References

  • 1 Glasgold MJ, Glasgold RA, Lam SM. Volume restoration and facial aesthetics. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 2008; 16 (4) 435-442 , vi
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Lam SM, Glasgold RA, Glasgold MJ. Limitations, complications, and long-term sequelae of fat transfer. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 2008; 16 (4) 391-399 , v
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Lam SM, Glasgold MJ, Glasgold RA. Complementary Fat Grafting. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott; Williams & Wilkins; 2007
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar