Perioral filling

Published on 16/03/2015 by admin

Filed under Dermatology

Last modified 22/04/2025

Print this page

rate 1 star rate 2 star rate 3 star rate 4 star rate 5 star
Your rating: none, Average: 0 (0 votes)

This article have been viewed 1574 times

19 Perioral filling

Anatomical considerations

The perioral region refers to the area of the face from the subnasal and nasolabial folds to the lower border of the soft tissue contour of the chin (the menton). The orbicularis oris – the sphincter muscle of the mouth – controls all movement, aided by other muscles involved in the elevation of the upper lips, such as the levator labii superioris, zygomaticus major, and levator anguli oris, and depression of the lower lip, such as the depressor labii inferioris and the depressor anguli oris (DAO).

Age-related changes are a result of a combination of factors, including loss of subcutaneous volume, thinning of the dermis, changes in bony structures, skin laxity due to loss of collagen and elastin, and downward gravitational shift of the skin and underlying tissues. Over the years, the entire perioral region begins to droop. The lips may deflate and flatten, vertical rhytides appear above and below the vermilion lips, the mandible rotates (downward and backward for women; forward for men), and oral commissures turn down emphasizing the drooping mouth and prominence of the marionette lines. Soft tissue atrophy and bone reduction in the region between the chin and jowl result in a groove termed the pre-jowl sulcus. Redistribution of overlying skin and subcutaneous tissues results in the underprojection of the chin and malar eminences. Loss of definition occurs around the mandible, and the mentalis area develops a pebbled ‘peau d’orange’ appearance owing to repetitive muscular activity in conjunction with volume loss in the chin (Fig. 19.1).

Ideal filling agents for perioral rejuvenation

Soft tissue augmenting agents fall into biodegradable (or non-permanent) and non-biodegradable (permanent) categories, and the choice of product will depend on several factors, including injector preference, area to be injected, and volume required. Permanent agents, such as polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) and liquid injectable silicone, are associated with lumps and inflammatory reactions, as well as the rare occurrence of delayed reactions in individuals with normal immune systems, respectively, and should never be used for perioral rejuvenation. Bovine, porcine, or human collagen products have a long history of use in the face but are no longer utilized. Autologous fat transfer carries surgical risks, significant recovery periods, and inconsistent results.

With their malleability and high level of patient satisfaction and acceptance, non-permanent hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers have found a prominent place in the filler armamentarium, particularly for the lips and perioral region. There are a number of HA formulations available; the optimal filler for augmentation around the mouth is one that can be diluted with local anesthetic for patient comfort and to ‘construct’ individualized filler viscosity and flow characteristics appropriate for the different treatment areas (e.g. more diluted for the lips, more viscous for applications in the jaw and chin). Calcium hydroxylapatite (CaHA) can be used to delineate the jawline, chin, and cheeks, but the use of sturdy particles is not appropriate for the delicate skin of the lips.

Injection techniques

Like the choice of appropriate filling agent, injection techniques vary. Initial patient evaluation should include an overall assessment of the diffuse volume deficit, as well as the individual lines and depressions for a multifaceted treatment approach (Fig. 19.2). In some cases, rejuvenation of the lower face can be accomplished with filling agents alone using a conservative approach and follow-up visits to assess the need for additional treatment. Because of the dynamic nature of the perioral region, fillers often do not last as long as they do in less mobile locations. For this reason, restoration of volume in the lower face is often combined with movement control via botulinum toxin (BoNT). Indeed, combination therapy has been shown by numerous studies to work synergistically, providing optimal and longer lasting clinical benefits than with either modality alone. Some clinicians consider combination therapy the standard for rejuvenation in the lower face.

In the only prospective, randomized study of the perioral region to date, Carruthers and colleagues studied HA alone or in combination with BoNT for lip augmentation and the treatment of oral commissures and perioral rhytides. Combination therapy proved better on three patient-reported outcomes: overall satisfaction, perioral / lipstick lines, and total satisfaction. Patients demonstrated satisfaction and improvement in self-perceived age with combination therapy or HA alone, compared with BoNT alone. When investigators rated improvements, combination therapy was superior for all end points, with statistically significant longer durations of effect.

Oral commissures

During the aging process, atrophy of soft tissue and changes to the mandible lead to diminished muscular and cutaneous support of the lateral commissures. As a result, the corners of the mouth begin to turn downward, helped along by gravitational pull and repetitive muscular activity of the DAO and platysma. The negative curve to the lips presents an involuntarily disagreeable facial expression. Correction of the oral commissures requires augmentation to fill the lines and folds and to lift the corners of the mouth. Simultaneous neurotoxin relaxation of the DAO, platysma, and mentalis are also helpful.

A combination of serial puncture and linear threading has been reported in the literature, with the former preferred for deep depressions and lateral lip festoons, and the latter for shallower grooves and less extensive downturns of the mouth. The 30-gauge, 1-inch (2.5 cm) needle is inserted in the mid-dermal level of the modiolus with the patient’s mouth slightly open, while the non-injecting hand holds the skin taut. Slow injection using the ‘push ahead’ technique allows the filler to precede the needle tip through the delicate tissues, reducing injection-related adverse events (Fig. 19.4). In some cases, injections may need to extend into the white roll of the upper lateral lip or higher to elevate the angle of the mouth. Injecting the lateral upper lip and lateral lower lip and extending the filling agent support inferiorly down the melomental fold to the mandibular margin can increase longevity of the result. Cross-hatching may be used in patients requiring extensive correction or to fill the triangular area of the commissures. The needle is inserted approximately 1 cm below the lip, and a linear threading technique is used to inject along the lip and into the marionette lines. As much as 1.5 mL of HA may be used on each side to provide adequate fullness, particularly in older patients. Mouth corners often cannot be adequately addressed without adding extra support to the pre-jowl and perimental areas (see below).

Augmentation in the mouth corners usually does not last as long as in other areas. Concomitant injections of BoNT into the DAO can be used to reduce its downward pull against the zygomatic complex, which elevates the corners of the lips, and to extend the duration of the filling agent by reducing repetitive muscular activity.

Augmentation of the jaw and chin

The chin forms the front of the jaw and is the most prominent element of the lower third of the face in frontal view and in profile. The contour of the chin is determined by the shape and position of the mandible and underlying soft tissues. Bone loss and progressive soft tissue atrophy and descent around the nasolabial folds and marionette lines give rise to the pre-jowl sulcus, perimental hollows, labiomental crease, and ptosis of the chin pad. The redistribution of the overlying skin and subcutaneous tissues leads to a less defined jawline, jowls, and an underprojected or double chin.

Augmentation of the chin can improve its shape and forward protrusion and sharpen the jawline. Typically 0.2–0.4 mL of filler material is injected subdermally into the regions superior and lateral to the mentum (Fig. 19.5). Filling the pre-jowl sulcus – indentations along the jaw directly below the corners of the mouth that interrupt the smooth line of the jaw – smoothes the mandibular border, while augmentation of the perimental hollows and labiomental crease gives additional support to the entire chin complex (Fig. 19.6). The key to correcting the pre-jowl sulcus is the recreation of the inferior border of the mandible, rather than simple volume replacement along the body of the mandible. To correct the pre-jowl sulcus, filler is placed in the deep dermis in the subdermal plane while taking care to avoid the facial artery and vein, which are pre-periosteal. Incremental, slow injection combined with gentle massage can create a smooth correction that blends well with the adjacent chin and jaw contours.

To smooth the appearance of the pebbled chin, 3–5 U of BoNT at the point of the mentum into the mentalis on each side into the DAO can be injected during the same treatment session, if required. Injections along the periosteum of the inferior mandible add volume to the atrophic jawline.

Perioral complications

The mouth is the central focal point of the lower face and is an unforgiving area for augmentation; the smallest mistake shows easily. Clinicians should begin conservatively and retreat if necessary at subsequent follow-up. Injection-related side effects include bruising, swelling, and pain, all of which are temporary and may be alleviated, in part, by the application of ice after the procedure. Injections into dynamic areas associated with a great amount of movement, such as around the mouth, may lead to less satisfactory results because the motion will encourage absorption. The use of permanent filling agents in areas of repetitive movement can lead to beading, palpability, and visibility of the implant. Even when using biodegradable agents, nodule formation is common and hypersensitivity reactions have been reported. More serious adverse events, such as delayed granulomas or inflammatory nodules, can occur but are largely associated with permanent fillers.

Many complications can be avoided by proper injection techniques and careful selection of product. Glogau and Kane investigated the influence of injection technique on the rate of adverse events in a prospective, blinded, controlled study of 283 patients randomized to receive mid-face volume correction of nasolabial folds and oral commissures with different formulations of HA (Restylane® and Perlane®). Injection techniques that increased the dissection of the subepidermal plane (i.e. fanning, rapid injection, rapid flow rates, and higher volumes) were associated with an increased incidence of local adverse events. Multiple punctures or deep subcutaneous injection had no effect on the rate of adverse effects.

Conclusion

The last few years have seen a shift in the treatment of lines and folds in the aging face, with a greater appreciation for the value of a three-dimensional approach incorporating volume restoration. Areas of deflation are often treated in conjunction with other regions of the face, rather than in isolation, and the use of combined modalities has climbed in popularity. Augmentation with soft tissue fillers in the lower face is an important aspect of facial rejuvenation, particularly when combined with reinflation and restoration of the mid-face. Complications with biodegradable agents are rare, particularly in the hands of the experienced injector.

Case Study 1

A 69-year-old woman of Northern European extraction had undergone a facelift 7 years previously. She is worried about her recurrent facial lines and the deflation of her cheeks and chin. She would like to see a smoother, softer, less fatigued and stressed expression, but does not wish to have another facelift or laser resurfacing. Her health is excellent and she is very keen to proceed with treatment that is non-invasive, effective, and safe. We discussed the use of neurotoxin injections to relax the ‘mouth frown’, perioral lines, and the platysmal bands. Also, the addition of a hyaluronic acid filler, which is reversible if necessary and safe to use, throughout the face will recontour the facial skin envelope. The combined use of neurotoxin and filler give a superior result, both initially and over time, since the neurotoxin stops degradation of the filler through repetitive motion, particularly in the perioral area. Before (Fig. 19.7A, B) and after (Fig. 19.7C, D) photographs demonstrate the rejuvenating effect of 96 units of onabotulinumtoxinA and 9 mL of Juvéderm® Voluma injected in the forehead, temples, glabella, nasal bridge, infraorbital hollows, cheeks, perioral region, lips and chin, and mandibular margin.

Further reading

Agarwal A, Dejoseph L, Silver W. Anatomy of the jawline, neck, and perioral area with clinical correlations. Facial Plastic Surgery. 2005;21:3–10.

Atamoros FP. Botulinum toxin in the lower one third of the face. Clinical Dermatology. 2003;21:505–512.

Carruthers J, Klein AW, Carruthers A, et al. Safety and efficacy of Restylane for improvement of mouth corners. Dermatologic Surgery. 2005;31:1–5.

Carruthers JDA, Glogau RG, Blitzer A, the Facial Aesthetics Consensus Group Faculty. Advances in facial rejuvenation: botulinum toxin type A, hyaluronic acid dermal fillers, and combination therapies – consensus recommendations. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 2008;121(suppl 5):S5–S30.

Carruthers A, Carruthers J, Monheit GD, et al. Multicenter, randomized, parallel-group study of the safety and effectiveness of onabotulinumtoxinA and hyaluronic acid dermal fillers (24-mg/ml smooth, cohesive gel) alone and in combination for lower facial rejuvenation. Dermatologic Surgery. 2010;36(suppl 4):2121–2134.

Carruthers J, Carruthers A, Monheit GD, et al. Multicenter, randomized, parallel-group study of onabotulinumtoxinA and hyaluronic acid dermal fillers (24-mg/ml smooth, cohesive gel) alone and in combination for lower facial rejuvenation: satisfaction and patient-reported outcomes. Dermatologic Surgery. 2010;36(suppl 4):2135–2145.

De Boulle K, Swinberghe S, Engman M, et al. Lip augmentation and contour correction with a ribose cross-linked collagen dermal filler. Journal of Drugs in Dermatology. 2009;9(suppl 3):1–8.

Glogau RG, Kane MA. Effect of injection techniques on the rate of local adverse events in patients implanted with nonanimal hyaluronic acid gel dermal fillers. Dermatologic Surgery. 2008;34(suppl 1):S105–S109.

Gold MH. Use of hyaluronic acid fillers for the treatment of the aging face. Clinical Interventions in Aging. 2007;2:369–376.

Klein AW. In search of the perfect lip: 2005. Dermatologic Surgery. 2005;31:1599–1603.

Lemperle G, Rullan PP, Gauthier-Hazan N. Avoiding and treating dermal filler complications. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 2006;118:S92–S107.

Perkins NW, Smith SP, Jr., Williams EF, 3rd. Perioral rejuvenation: complementary techniques and procedures. Facial Plastic Surgery Clinics of North America. 2007;15:423–432.

Petrus GM, Lewis D, Maas CS. Anatomic considerations for treatment with botulinum toxin. Facial Plastic Surgery Clinics of North America. 2007;15:1–9.

Sclafani AP. Soft tissue fillers for management of the aging perioral complex. Facial Plastic Surgery. 2005;21:74–78.

Tan SR, Glogau RG. Filler esthetics. In: Carruthers A, Carruthers J. Procedures in cosmetic dermatology series: soft tissue augmentation. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 2005.

Weinkle S. Injection techniques for revolumization of the perioral region with hyaluronic acid. Journal of Drugs in Dermatology. 2010;9:367–371.