From Novel Facial Measurements to Facial Implantology: A Systematic Review

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

• Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
• Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
• Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
• Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
• Emerging · Emerging topic under active research

Abstract (original English)

Background Facial implants have emerged as pivotal tools for both reconstructive and aesthetic skull bone augmentation. Contemporary manufacturing techniques, such as computer-aided design and manufacturing (CAD-CAM) systems, have revolutionized facial implants production, providing the advantages of high-level individualization. However, the absence of standardized facial measurements complicates the ability to accurately compare outcomes across various techniques. This systematic review investigates the strengths and limitations of various facial measurements employed in facial implants, with a particular focus on their impact on aesthetic outcomes and potential complications. Methods We identified 13 studies in our comprehensive search across PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases. Results In total, 620 patients were included. The majority of the chosen studies focused on aesthetic purposes (69%). Primarily, mandibular (46%) or nasal regions (23%) were investigated, with porous polyethylene (31%), silicone (23%), and polyetheretherketone (23%) being the most utilized materials. Despite considerable heterogeneity in measurement approaches, including variations in reference points and angles, complications such as surgical site infections and nerve-related injuries were reported in the included studies. Conclusion Our review highlights the importance of

Evidence level

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.