Literature DB >> 18547181

A comparison of commercially available polymethylmethacrylate-based soft tissue fillers.

Daniel Piacquadio1, Stacy Smith, Russell Anderson.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND The rapid market expansion of filler treatment options requires physicians and health care providers to fully understand differences among comparable products. OBJECTIVE The objective was to compare commercially available polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA)-based soft tissue fillers to determine if there are meaningful variations in these products that could result in significantly different therapeutic profiles, especially with respect to safety. METHODS AND MATERIALS PMMA particles were evaluated for size and morphology using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) techniques. PMMA microsphere soft tissue filler products from the United States, Europe, Brazil, and Canada were compared with respect to size, homogeneity/irregularity, surface smoothness/roughness, and the presence or absence of sediment and particulate debris. RESULTS Marked differences with respect to PMMA particle morphology and related particle characteristics from a variety of products were found. Of note, some products demonstrated potentially concerning significant variability in particle size and irregular morphology. CONCLUSION It is anticipated that the variability detected in these products, based on the literature, could result in different therapeutic profiles, especially with respect to safety. Physicians and health care providers should be aware that "comparable" products that at a glance appear similar may not be equal.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18547181     DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4725.2008.34242.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dermatol Surg        ISSN: 1076-0512            Impact factor:   3.398


  6 in total

1.  Can injection of PMMA-microspheres cause hypercalcemia?

Authors:  Gottfried Lemperle; Almir Moojen Nacul; Flavio Borges Fortes
Journal:  Clin Cases Miner Bone Metab       Date:  2015 Jan-Apr

2.  Complications of facial fillers: resource implications for NHS hospitals.

Authors:  Nadine Hachach-Haram; Marco Gregori; Niall Kirkpatrick; Richard Young; Jonathan Collier
Journal:  BMJ Case Rep       Date:  2013-01-28

Review 3.  Safety and Efficiency of Minimally Invasive Buttock Augmentation: A Review.

Authors:  Bishara Atiyeh; Fadi Ghieh; Ahmad Oneisi
Journal:  Aesthetic Plast Surg       Date:  2022-08-23       Impact factor: 2.708

4.  ArteFill permanent injectable for soft tissue augmentation: II. Indications and applications.

Authors:  Gottfried Lemperle; Neil S Sadick; Terry R Knapp; Stefan M Lemperle
Journal:  Aesthetic Plast Surg       Date:  2009-09-29       Impact factor: 2.326

5.  Facial soft tissue augmentation with Artecoll(®): A review of eight years of clinical experience in 153 patients.

Authors:  Philip Solomon; Michael Sklar; Rebecca Zener
Journal:  Can J Plast Surg       Date:  2012

6.  Location of injected polymethylmethacrylate microspheres influences the onset of late adverse effects: an experimental and histopathologic study.

Authors:  Luciano Henrique de Jesus; Laura de Campos Hildebrand; Manoela Domingues Martins; Francinne Miranda da Rosa; Chris Krebs Danilevicz; Manoel Sant'Ana Filho
Journal:  Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol       Date:  2015-08-06
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.