Skip to main content
Log in

HTR® polymer facial implants: A five-year clinical experience

  • Published:
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Forty-three patients at two different international sites underwent onlay facial augmentation of the malar, paranasal, and chin regions using 61 HTR polymer preformed implants. All implants were placed intraorally and rigidly fixed with a titanium screw. Over postoperative periods ranging from two to five years, one implant was removed because of infection. Two other implants in patients with rheumatic and connective tissue disease were removed because of persistent pain and erythema. Another peri-implant infection was treated successfully without removal. Oneyear postoperative radiographs in patients with chin implants demonstrated no underlying bone resorption. This porous polymeric material appears to offer clinical results comparable to other alloplastic materials for onlay facial skeletal augmentation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ashman A, Bruins PF: A new immediate hard tissue replacement (HTR) for bone in the oral cavity. J Oral Implantol 10:419, 1982

    Google Scholar 

  2. Cook AD, Sagers RD, Pitt WG: Bacterial adhesion to poly(HEMA)-based hydrogels. J Biomed Mat Res 27:119, 1993

    Google Scholar 

  3. Donohue WB, Mascres C: A comparison of the effects of two hydroxyapatites and a methacrylate resin on bone formation in the rat ilium. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 8:75, 1993

    Google Scholar 

  4. Eppley BL, Sadove AM, German RZ: Evaluation of HTR polymer as a craniomaxillofacial graft material. Plast Reconstr Surg 86:1085, 1990

    Google Scholar 

  5. Fleer A, Verhoef J: An evaluation of the role of surface hydrophobicity and extracellular slime in the pathogenesis of foreign body-related infections due to coagulasenegative Staphylococci. J Invest Surg 2:391, 1989

    Google Scholar 

  6. Golomb G, Barashi A, Wagner D, Nachmias O: In-vitro and in-vivo models for the study of the relationship between hydrophilicity and calcification of polymeric and collagenous biomaterials. Clin Mat 13:61, 1993

    Google Scholar 

  7. Harkes C, Feijen J, Dankert J: Adhesion of Escherichia coli on to a series of poly(methacrylates) differing in charge and hydrophobicity. Biomaterials 12:853, 1991

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hinderer UT: Nasal base, maxillary, and infraorbital implants-alloplastic. Clin Plast Surg 18:87, 1991

    Google Scholar 

  9. Holmstrom H, Kahnberg K-E, Lessard L: The use of preformed HTR polymer implants for chin augmentation. A preliminary report. Scand J Plast Reconstr Hand Surg 27:1, 1993

    Google Scholar 

  10. Isaksson S, Alberius P, Klinge B: Influence of three alloplastic materials on calvarial bone healing. An experimental evaluation of HTR polymer, lactomer beads, and a carrier gel. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 22:375, 1993

    Google Scholar 

  11. Ludwicka A, Jansen B, Uhlenbruck G, Jeljaszewicz J, Pulverer G: Attachment of Staphylococci to modified and unmodified synthetic polymers. In: Ducheyne P, Van der Perre G, Aubert AE (eds): Biomaterials and Biomechanics. Amsterdam: Elsevier Scinece Publishers. 1984, pp 265–270

    Google Scholar 

  12. Mladick RA: Alloplastic cheek augmentation. Clin Plast Surg 18:29, 1991

    Google Scholar 

  13. Oga M, Sugioka Y, Hobgood CD, Gristina AG, Myrvik QN: Surgical biomaterials and differential colonization by Staphylococcus epidermidis. Biomaterials 9:285, 1988

    Google Scholar 

  14. Petty W, Spanier S, Shuster JJ, Silverthorne C: The influence of skeletal implants on incidence of infection. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 67:1238, 1985

    Google Scholar 

  15. Ripamonti U, Petit J-C, Moehl T, van den Heever B, van Wyk J: Immediate reconstruction of massive cranioorbito-facial defects with allogeneic and alloplastic ma trices in baboons. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 21:302, 1993

    Google Scholar 

  16. Smetana K Jr, Vacik J, Souckova D, Pitrova S: The influence of chemical functional groups on implant biocompatibility. Clin Mat 13:47, 1993

    Google Scholar 

  17. Stahl SS, Fruom SJ, Tarnow D: Human clinical and histologic responses to the placement of HTR polymer particles in 11 intrabony lesions. J Periodontol 60:269, 1990

    Google Scholar 

  18. Uyen HMW, van der Mei HC, Weerkamp AH, Busscher HJ: Zeta potential and the adhesion of oral Streptococci to polymethylmethacrylate. Biomat Art Cells Art Org 17:385,1989

    Google Scholar 

  19. Wellisz T: Clinical experience with the Medpor porous polyethylene implant. Aesth Plast Surg 17:339, 1993

    Google Scholar 

  20. Whitaker LA: Aesthetic augmentation of the malarmidface structures. Plast Reconstr Surg 80:337, 1987

    Google Scholar 

  21. Whitaker LA: Aesthetic contouring of the facial support system. Clin Plast Surg 16:815, 1989

    Google Scholar 

  22. Whitaker LA, Pertschuk M: Facial skeletal contouring for aesthetic purposes. Plast Reconstr Surg 59:245, 1982

    Google Scholar 

  23. Wilkinson T: Complications in aesthetic malar augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 71:643, 1983

    Google Scholar 

  24. Yukna RA: HTR polymer grafts in human periodontal osseous defects. 1. 6-month clinical results. J Periodontol 61:633, 1990

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Eppley, B.L., Sadove, A.M., Holmstrom, H. et al. HTR® polymer facial implants: A five-year clinical experience. Aesth. Plast. Surg. 19, 445–450 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00453878

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00453878

Key words

Navigation