Pins and needles: minimally invasive office techniques for facial rejuvenation

Facial Plast Surg. 2009 Nov;25(4):260-9. doi: 10.1055/s-0029-1242038. Epub 2009 Nov 18.

Abstract

The desire for minimally invasive facial rejuvenation has continued to increase from the perspective of both the patients and injectors. For successful rejuvenation, it is important to understand the anatomic changes of the aging face as well as the properties of available neuromodulators and soft tissue fillers. The injector should be knowledgeable of the advantages and disadvantages of each product. Patient selection, perhaps, plays the largest role in success, choosing patients that would truly benefit from and have reasonable expectations for minimally invasive techniques. Unsatisfactory outcomes can be limited by meticulous injection technique and well thought out treatment plans.

MeSH terms

  • Aging / pathology
  • Biocompatible Materials / therapeutic use
  • Botulinum Toxins, Type A / therapeutic use
  • Collagen / therapeutic use
  • Dimethylpolysiloxanes / therapeutic use
  • Durapatite / therapeutic use
  • Face / surgery*
  • Facial Muscles / drug effects
  • Humans
  • Hyaluronic Acid / therapeutic use
  • Injections, Subcutaneous
  • Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures / methods
  • Neck Muscles / drug effects
  • Neurotransmitter Agents / therapeutic use
  • Patient Care Planning
  • Patient Selection
  • Plastic Surgery Procedures / methods*
  • Polymethyl Methacrylate / therapeutic use
  • Rejuvenation*
  • Skin Aging / drug effects
  • Treatment Outcome

Substances

  • Biocompatible Materials
  • Dimethylpolysiloxanes
  • Neurotransmitter Agents
  • Hyaluronic Acid
  • Collagen
  • Polymethyl Methacrylate
  • Durapatite
  • Botulinum Toxins, Type A