This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Biomaterials and Implants  • Alert me on articles by topic

Arch Facial Plast Surg. 1999;1:190.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

GROSS ET AL¹ report a retrospective study of 264 patients who underwent Mersilene mesh (Ethicon, Sommerville, NJ) chin augmentation over a 14-year period. In their experience, this implant provided a simple, safe, and cost-effective material with excellent patient acceptance and satisfaction. This is a well-done study with good analysis.

We previously used Mersilene mesh implants for chin and nasal augmentation and would agree with the authors' favorable comments on the material. There are, however, disadvantages that outweigh some of these advantages. For us, it was impossible to create implants of truly precise dimensions owing to the nature of the mesh. One can include more sheets of varying lengths, but the final implant dimensions are not exact. As the authors mention, larger implants were extremely difficult to craft; often the correction seemed smaller postoperatively than we expected. We speculated that this resulted from some compaction of the implant during healing. Technical . . . [Full Text of this Article]

RELATED ARTICLE

Mersilene Mesh Chin Augmentation: A 14-Year Experience
Edward J. Gross, Mark M. Hamilton, Kelly Ackermann, and Stephen W. Perkins
Arch Facial Plast Surg. 1999;1(3):183-189.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT