Gold, Michael H.

AbstractBackgroundThe temporal lifting technique can provide lateral facial lifting when administering hyaluronic acid (HA)‐based soft tissue fillers into the subdermal plane of the temple. However, the central facial oval is not influenced by this technique.ObjectivesTo identify the safety and esthetic effectiveness of additional midfacial injection points (in addition to the temporal lifting technique) that can volumize the medial midface, lift the lateral face, and increase jawline contouring when included into a full‐face injection algorithm.MethodsThe patient records of nine consecutive patients (all females) with a mean age of 35.0 (8.4) years and a mean body mass index of 21.7 (2.4) kg/m2 were retrospectively analyzed after a full‐face injection algorithm was performed using HA‐based fillers. The additional injection points target the supraperiosteal plane of the medial zygomatic arch, the lateral infraorbital region, and the pyriform fossa using both needles and cannula.ResultsNo adverse events were observed during the 6‐month retrospective observational period. The volume of the medial midface increased, the volume of the lateral midface decreased, and the contour of the jawline improved; all effects reached a highly statistically significant level with p < 0.001.ConclusionDespite each individual injection is currently performed on a daily clinical basis the evaluated injection algorithm following the temporal lifting technique shows some evidence that it is safe and esthetically effective. Future studies will need to confirm the results presented herein in a larger sample and with objective outcome measures to guide safe and effective esthetic outcomes.

AbstractBackgroundDifferences in the effectiveness of neuromodulator treatments for horizontal forehead lines dependent on depth of product administration have been described. However, knowledge in respect to the fascial anatomy of the forehead still remains elusive.AimsTo relate the fascial anatomy of the forehead to the effectiveness of neuromodulator treatments by conducting a clinical, prospective, interventional split‐face study in which injections for the treatment of horizontal forehead lines are performed differently between facial sides.MethodsThis study included a total of n = 14 patients with a mean age of 35.71 (7.8) years and mean body mass index of 21.9 (3.0) kg/m2. One side of the forehead was injected superficially by positioning the product in the superficial fatty layer, whereas the contralateral side was injected deep targeting the supraperiosteal plane (random selection). The treatment outcome was rated by the physician and by two independent observers according to a forehead line severity scale (0‐4) at 14 and at 30 days.ResultsAll three observers agreed in their ratings (ICC: 0.942) that the deep injection technique resulted in a superior outcome: D14 (superficial vs deep) 0.17 (0.4) vs 0.14 (0.4; P = .583) at rest and 1.26 (0.6) vs 0.43 (0.5; P < .001) for frontalis contraction; D30 0.17 (0.4) vs 0.14 (0.3) at rest (P = .583) and 1.21 (0.6) vs 0.43 (0.5; P < .001) for frontalis contraction.ConclusionThe results of this study underscore how detailed anatomic knowledge can enhance results of aesthetic interventions, in this case horizontal forehead line treatment with neuromodulators.

AbstractBackgroundWhile the temporal lifting technique has gained increasing attention, there is a dearth of objective and reliable evidence of its effects.AimThe objective of the present study is to analyze the ability of the temporal lifting technique to reduce the midfacial volume by soft tissue repositioning and to achieve an improved pan‐facial appearance by targeting exclusively the subdermal plane of the posterior and superior temple with soft tissue fillers.MethodsA total of 12 patients (1 male and 11 females) with a mean age of 36.75 ± 6.6 years and a mean body mass index of 23.04 ± 1.3 kg/m2 were included in this prospective clinical single‐center interventional study. Injection‐related outcome was evaluated utilizing 3D skin vector displacement and surface volume analyses and scoring based on five different evaluators.ResultsThree months after the treatment, the global esthetic improvement scale rating showed an improved outcome (3.08) when evaluated by the independent observers, very improved outcome when evaluated by the treating physician (4.33), and exceptional improvement when rated by the patient (4.83). Temporal volume improved by 0.36 (P < .001), lower cheek fullness by 0.47 (P < .001), and jawline contouring by 0.51 (P < .001). No major adverse events were reported during the 3‐month observational period.ConclusionObjective outcome measures have provided evidence that by augmenting the posterior superior temple the volume of the middle face can be reduced and the contour of the jawline can be accentuated; this is due to the underlying fascial anatomy and the resulting soft tissue re‐position.