title: Midface implants: surgical and nonsurgical alternatives.
abstract: The midface has suffered vigorous challenges in terms of rejuvenation techniques over the years. A variety of alternatives are available for facial skeletal and soft tissue volume enhancement. No technique is ideal in every patient. After a thorough facial analysis, the surgeon must consider the advantages and disadvantages of implant-based volume enhancement in the context of each individual patient to determine the most appropriate option. Computer modeling provides improved methods to assess volumetric changes to augment and restore the facial volume. It is our belief that the multiple planes of dissection offered by the midface also allow us to redrape the soft tissues 3-dimensionally and continue to offer the consistency and longevity with implant-based midface rejuvenation.
authors.affiliation: US Department of the Army, Beaumont Medical Center, Special Operations Task Force, 8th Medical Brigade, Michigan.
authors.forename: Diya
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Tantawi
authors.affiliation: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
authors.forename: Seth
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Eberlin
authors.affiliation: Roxbury Plastic Surgery Clinic, 465 North Roxbury, Suite 1001, Beverly Hills, CA 90210, USA. Electronic address: drcalvert@roxburysurgery.com.
authors.forename: Jay
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Calvert
mesh_terms: D000273:Adipose Tissue / Q000637:transplantation; D006801:Humans; D020959:Polyethylene; D011138:Polytetrafluoroethylene; D019736:Prostheses and Implants; D012060:Rejuvenation; D015361:Rhytidoplasty / Q000295:instrumentation* / Q000379:methods
chemical_list: D011138:Polytetrafluoroethylene; D020959:Polyethylene
keywords: Aesthetic surgical procedures; Facial aging; Facial implants; Facial rejuvenation; Midface implants