Treatment of the mid-face with botulinum toxin

Published on 26/02/2015 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 3080 times

17 Treatment of the mid-face with botulinum toxin

Introduction

The mid-face is the region between the zygomatic arches superiorly and the intercommis ural line inferiorly. The mid-face has complex muscular anatomy demanding full anatomical knowledge and precise injection technique. The small muscles in this area are important in expressing emotion, elevating the upper lip, and smiling. These smaller muscles are more closely arranged than their upper facial counterparts, and functionally integrated through the superficial muscular aponeurotic system (SMAS). The upper lip elevators function to produce a smile and are essential for the accurate conveyance of positive emotion. Even minor dysfunction of these muscles can have dire social consequences. Injection in the mid-face area is not for the novice injector, but can deliver real and tangible benefit for the patient when applied correctly.

The smaller mid-facial muscles require smaller doses when compared with their upper facial counterparts, especially in initial treatments. The advent of multiple botulinum toxin formulations has added another layer of complexity to this already challenging application and it is important to be aware of proper conversions / dilutions for each toxin (Table 17.1). Small errors in absolute dosage make a large difference in the percentage of the intended doses in this area. The activity of onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox®) and incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin®) is measured in murine lethal units (U), with both agents available as 50 U or 100 U per bottle with unit equivalency. It is best to use a higher concentration (e.g. 100 U/mL for Botox®) in the mid- and lower face to minimize toxin diffusion. Abobotulinum toxin A (Dysport®) activity is measured in Speywood units (sU) with either 500 sU or 300 sU/bottle, with a typical dilution of 250 sU/mL. As such, onabotulinum / incobotulinum toxin units and abobotulinum units are not interchangeable, and the exact conversion factor is controversial. According to FDA-approved labeling for the treatment of the glabella, 1 U Botox® is approximately equal to 2.5 sU Dysport®. However, studies have found abobotulinumtoxinA : onabotulinumtoxinA unit ratios to be in the range of 2.5–5 : 1. Some studies such as that by Husseman & Mehta have found abobotulinumtoxinA (Dysport®) to have greater diffusion than onabotulinumtoxinA, meriting even additional caution given the intimately associated nature of the muscles in this area.

Additional points to bear in mind when treating the mid-face are that it is critical to avoid initial overtreatment; a standard of low starting doses and upward dose titration as needed should be adopted. Exact placement of the neurotoxins is critical – and marking the injection site before inserting the needle is suggested. Photographic documentation of the marked sites can be a helpful part of the patient’s records. The expectation that botulinum toxin alone will achieve all of the aesthetic correction in the mid-face is fallacious. Fillers are often used in this area to correct age-associated volume loss. Botulinum toxins can improve the appearance of the mid-face and, with proper patient selection, rigorous knowledge of facial anatomy and precise injection technique, toxins can prove a useful tool in this area.

‘Bunny’ / nasal sidewall scrunch lines

‘Bunny’ lines or nasal sidewall ‘scrunch’ lines are angled, horizontal rhytides that traverse the nasal bridge. While not necessarily associated with aging, many patients find them distressing as they convey the impression of distaste. Bunny lines may appear in individuals who have had a number of BoNT-A treatments in the glabella. Bunny lines result primarily from contraction of superior nasalis (pars transversalis) fibers with accessory action from the levator labii superioris aleque nasii (LLSAN) and inferomedial orbicularis oculi.

Injection sites / dosage

Injection sites for bunny lines are highly individualizable, as are the patterns of the lines. In general, one should ‘inject the fold’ within the following parameters. Injection sites should be kept high on the lateral nasal sidewall (Fig. 17.1) and well medial to the nasofacial sulcus to avoid inadvertent LLSAN weakness. Injections need to be placed only superficially (i.e. intradermally, raising a bleb) to avoid increased diffusion in the low-resistance subnasalis plane. The typical dose ranges have been reported as 2–8 U for onabotulinumtoxinA on each side or 10–20 sU for abobotulinumtoxinA. Figure 17.2 shows a patient before and after bunny line treatment. If LLSAN has a large role in the formation of bunny lines, and the patient is a candidate for LLSAN treatment (as discussed below), that area can be treated concomitantly.

Levator labii superioris alequae nasii

This small, but long, muscle originates on the medial maxilla before bifurcating and inserting into the medial orbicularis oris and nasal ala. Contraction of this muscle has several sequelae. First, it works with the levator labii superioris to elevate the upper central lip. Hyperactivity of this muscle may lead to excessive elevation of the upper lip on smiling and producing upper lip gum show or a ‘gummy smile’. The LLSAN’s dermal SMAS connections contribute to the medial part of the melolabial fold It also flares the alar base superolaterally; therefore it can give the appearance of a ptotic nasal tip on smiling. Finally, maximal contraction of the LLSAN can contribute to ‘bunny lines’.

Treatment of this muscle is performed primarily for two desired outcomes. The first is to treat ‘gummy smile’ by lengthening the upper lip in order to reduce the full incisor and upper gum show, as demonstrated in Figure 17.4. Treatment of this muscle can also be used to attenuate the medial nasolabial fold (NLF) in patients whom the etiology is primarily muscular (young patients with a mild to moderate NLF). As for the latter indication, it is important to remember that lip lengthening will occur concomitantly. Most patients in whom dermatoheliosis and soft tissue descent are primarily responsible for the melolabial fold, and in whom a ‘gummy smile’ is absent, will be better served by filler injection for treatment of the melolabial fold.

Zygomaticus complex

The zygomaticus complex is composed of the zygomaticus major and minor muscles (Fig. 17.5). The zygomaticus major originates laterally on the zygomatic arch deep to the orbicularis oculi muscle and inserts in the modiolus. It therefore pulls the lateral oral commissure superolaterally and dilates the oral aperture. Symmetrical movement of this muscle is perceived as smiling, whereas unilateral movement can give an impression of ‘sneering’. Additionally, dermal connection of this muscle through the SMAS may contribute to dimple formation.

The zygomaticus minor originates on the zygoma medial to the zygomaticus major and inserts on the superior fibers of the orbicularis oris. Like the LLSAN, the zygomaticus minor has dermal attachments through SMAS that may contribute to the middle third of the NLF. The zygomaticus minor may not be present in all patients.

Injection sites / dosage

The main indication for the treatment of these muscles is restoration of facial symmetry and desired emotional conveyance of facial expression, rather than rhytidosis. In a proportion of patients, hyperactivity of zygomaticus complex results in gingival show above the molars giving rise to the ‘posterior gummy smile’. Patients can benefit from botulinum toxin treatment of this area. Targeting of these muscles for the treatment of rhytidosis – treating the zygomaticus minor to attenuate the NLF – is fraught with peril and other modalities should first be considered. Relaxation of the zygomaticus minor can cause lip droop, giving a simian appearance to the smile. Other modalities may be advisable to avoid the risks of disfiguring the smile.

When treating asymmetry, the cause should be carefully considered while making your corrective plan. In the case of hyperdynamic asymmetry (muscular hyperactivity) the hyperactive side must be targeted to attenuate its movement and more closely resemble that of contralateral normoactive side. In the case of hypodynamic / adynamic asymmetry (one side moves less or not at all, as in Bell’s palsy, facial nerve paralysis, or surgical section of muscles), the normoactive side can be injected, so that it moves less, thus promoting symmetry.

Regardless of indication, the zygomaticus complex may be targeted in the following way. Draw a line connecting the lateral canthus to the oral commissure. Draw a horizontal line through the columellal base. The intersection of these two lines in the mid-cheek is your desired injection site. Start with low doses (1–2 U incobotulinumtoxinA or onabotulinumtoxinA), with follow-up at 2 weeks for reinjection if necessary. Remember, when correcting asymmetry the side that is more active should always be injected. Thus, when treating hyperdynamic asymmetry inject the ipsalateral (hyperactive) side, and when treating hypodynamic asymmetry inject the contralateral (normodynamic) side. Additionally, although hyperdynamic asymmetry may require higher corrective doses than other indications in this area, it is always best to start low and titrate up.

NLF correction with botulinum toxin relies on targeting the zygomaticus minor, which contributes to the formation of the middle third of the melolabial fold. Whereas some injectors may favor this, we believe that filler and LLSAN injection represent safer options for this indication. Some patients with primarily dynamic NLF may achieve benefit by attenuating the middle third of the melolabial fold.

Further reading

Ascher B, Talarico S, Cassuto D, et al. International consensus recommendations on the aesthetic usage of botulinum toxin type A (Speywood unit) – Part II: wrinkles on the middle and lower face, neck and chest. Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. 2010;24(11):1285–1295.

Basting RT, da Trindade R de C, Flório FM. Comparative study of smile analysis by subjective and computerized methods. Operative Dentistry. 2006;31(6):652–659.

Carruthers J, Carruthers A. Botulinum toxin A in the mid and lower face and neck. Dermatologic Clinics. 2004;22:151–158.

Carruthers JD, Glogau RG, Blitzer A. Advances in facial rejuvenation: botulinum toxin type A, hyaluronic acid dermal fillers, and combination therapies – consensus recommendations. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 2008;121:S5–S30.

Husseman J, Mehta RP. Management of synkenesis. Facial Plastic Surgery. 2008;24(2):242–249.

Mazzuco R, Hexsel D. Gummy smile and botulinum toxin: a new approach based on the gingival exposure area. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. 2010;63(6):1042–1051.

Raspaldo H, Baspeyras M, Bellity P, et al. Consensus Group. Upper- and mid-face anti-aging treatment and prevention using onabotulinumtoxin A: the 2010 multidisciplinary French consensus – part 1. Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology. 2011;10(1):36–50.

Raspaldo H, Baspeyras M, Bellity P, et al. Consensus Group. Lower-face and neck antiaging treatment and prevention using onabotulinumtoxin A: the 2010 multidisciplinary French consensus – part 2. Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology. 2011;10(2):131–149.

Sattler G, Callander MJ, Grablowitz D, et al. Noninferiority of incobotulinumtoxinA, free from complexing proteins, compared with another botulinum toxin type A in the treatment of glabellar frown lines. Dermatologic Surgery. 2010;36(suppl 4):2146–2154.

Spiegel JH, Derosa J. The anatomical relationship between the orbicularis oculi muscle and the levator labii superioris and zygomaticus muscle complexes. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 2005;116(7):1937–1942.

Toffola ED, Furini F, Redaelli C, et al. Evaluation and treatment of synkinesis with botulinum toxin following facial nerve palsy. Disability Rehabilitation. 2010;32(17):1414–1418.

Trindade de Almeida AR, Marques E, et al. Pilot study comparing the diffusion of two formulations of botulinum toxin type A in patients with forehead hyperhidrosis. Dermatologic Surgery. 2007;33(1):S37–S43.