Facial Soft Tissue Repositioning With Neuromodulators: Lessons Learned From Facial Biomechanics

Comparison of 2 Fillers for Lip Injection-A Randomized-Controlled Clinical Trial Assessed by 3D Imaging

Background

Lip aging is a concern for many, and hyaluronic acid (HA) injections are a popular solution.

Objectives

This study compared 2 different HA gel technologies (OBT and NASHA) for lip augmentation in 20 volunteers.

Methods

Both groups received treatment from the same injector using the same method. Lip volume was measured with a 3D stereophotogrammetry device before, immediately after, and 30 days posttreatment. Patient satisfaction and adverse events were assessed through FACE-Q scales analysis.

Results

The NASHA group showed an immediate volume increase (P = .01), which decreased after 30 days. The OBT group did not show a significant immediate growth (P = .535) but did exhibit a significant increase after 30 days (P = .014). After 30 days, there were no significant volume differences between the groups (P = .802 and P = .999). FACE-Q analysis revealed no significant differences among groups after 30 days.

Conclusions

This study highlights that less cohesive gels may modify faster in dynamic lip areas, emphasizing the importance of selecting products based on their physicochemical and rheological properties. In the context of lip augmentation with HA, it is important not to consider immediate aesthetic changes as definitive results, as volume changes may persist and develop over time after the treatment.

Level of Evidence 2

How to improve infraorbital hollows with neuromodulators-A clinical prospective interventional study about the application of facial biomechanics

BACKGROUND

A previous injection algorithm termed the "Toxin Lift" was recently introduced and described volume increases in the midface following neuromodulator treatments of the jawline. Increase in midfacial volume due to soft tissue repositioning could also affect the severity of infraorbital hollows.

OBJECTIVE

The objective is therefore to evaluate whether the severity of infraorbital hollows can be improved by injecting neuromodulators in the supra-mandibular segment of the platysma.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 35 volunteers (11 males/24 females) with a mean age of 39.8 (9.6) years and a mean BMI of 25.2 (5.2) kg/m2 were investigated. Bilateral infraorbital regions were evaluated via clinical assessment and semi-quantitative 3D imaging. The applied injection technique targeted the platysma via four injection points administering 5 I.U. per injection point resulting in a total of 20 I.U. per facial side.

RESULTS

Volume increase of the infraorbital region was 0.13 cc at 15 days (p = 0.001) and was 0.02 cc at 30 days (p = 0.452) whereas the skin displacement in cranial direction was 0.54 mm at 15 days (p < 0.001) and was 0.31 mm at 30 days (p < 0.001). Clinical evaluation revealed a highly statistically significant improvement of the tear trough, palpaebromalar groove, and of the lid-cheek junction when compared to baseline with all p < 0.001.

CONCLUSION

The results of this clinical prospective interventional analysis revealed that the "Toxin Lift" injection technique is capable to improve the clinical appearance of infraorbital hollows. The effects can be explained by the concepts of facial biomechanics.

How We Look At Mature Faces-An Eye-Tracking Investigation Into the Perception of Age

BACKGROUND

It is still unclear which facial region contributes most to the perception of an aged face when evaluated by eye-tracking analyses.

OBJECTIVES

The authors sought to apply eye-tracking technology to identify whether mature faces require longer fixation durations than young faces and which facial region contributes most to the perception of a mature face.

METHODS

Eye-tracking analyses were conducted in 74 volunteers (37 males, 37 females; 43 ≤ 40 years, 31 > 40 years) evaluating their gaze pattern and the fixation durations for the entire face and 9 facial subregions. Frontal facial images of 16 younger (<40 years) and older (>40 years) gender-matched individuals were presented in a standardized setting.

RESULTS

Independent of age or gender of the observer, a younger stimulus image was viewed shorter than an older stimulus image with 0.82 (0.63) seconds vs 1.06 (0.73) seconds with P < 0.001. There was no statistically significant difference in their duration of a stable eye fixation when observers inspected a male vs a female stimulus image [0.94 (0.70) seconds vs 0.94 (0.68) seconds; P = 0.657] independent of the observer's age or gender. The facial image that captured the most attention of the observer (rank 9) was the perioral region with 1.61 (0.73) seconds for younger observers and 1.57 (0.73) seconds for older observers.

CONCLUSIONS

It was revealed that the perioral region attracts the most attention of observers and contributes most to an aged facial appearance. Practitioners should be mindful of the importance of the perioral region when designing an aesthetic treatment plan.

Aesthetic considerations when treating the Latin American patient: Thriving in diversity international roundtable series

BACKGROUND

The Hispanic/Latin American population is the fastest growing non-Caucasian group in the United States. Within this group, demand for aesthetic procedures is on the rise. High ethnic variability among these patients influences treatment approaches and patient priorities. Understanding these ethnic differences is central to providing optimal care.

AIMS

To discuss similarities and differences in anatomy and treatment preferences of Hispanic/Latin American patients both within the United States and internationally and explore how these differences may influence or inform aesthetic practices.

PATIENTS/METHODS

In support of clinicians who wish to serve a diverse patient population, a 6-part, international roundtable series focused on diversity in aesthetics was conducted from August 24, 2021 to May 16, 2022. In this roundtable, held in Medellin, Columbia, expert clinicians from across Latin America and the United States were invited to contribute and share best practices.

RESULTS

The results of the second roundtable in the series, the Latin American Patient, are described here. A special emphasis is placed on procedures that address the most commonly encountered concerns in these patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Hispanic and Latino patients represent a broad demographic with unique anatomical features, aesthetic preferences, and treatment priorities. Clinicians should consider these differences when treating this patient population.

Clinical validation of the upper face first principle-A clinical, prospective, interventional split-face study

BACKGROUND

Previous clinical and anatomic investigations have identified the clinical relevance of facial biomechanics. Based on this new understanding, principles for facial aesthetic procedures were established: Lateral Face First, Deep Layers First, and Upper Face First.

OBJECTIVE

To test the upper face first principle by showing that an injection sequence, starting in the upper face is superior to an injection sequence starting in the lower face.

METHODS

This study was designed as an interventional split-face study administering the same amount and type of soft tissue filler for the upper, middle, and lower face but in a different sequence: upper, middle, lower face versus lower, middle, and upper face. A total of 15 patients (5 males and 10 females) with a mean age of 39.4 years (9.6) and a mean BMI of 23.4 kg/m² (1.7) were studied. Follow-up at D0, D30, and D90 was conducted utilizing semiquantitative scores and objective 3D imaging.

RESULTS

Despite not reaching statistical significance, midfacial volume and jawline contouring were rated better at every follow-up visit (D0, D30, D90) when treated with the upper versus the lower face first injection algorithm. The global aesthetic improvement scale showed statistically significantly better values for the upper face first algorithm when compared to the lower face first algorithm at all evaluated time points with all p < 0.001.

CONCLUSION

Applying the upper face first injection algorithm seems to result in better aesthetic outcomes when directly compared to the lower face first algorithm. Semiquantitative and objective outcome measurements confirm its clinical effectiveness.