# Facial Contouring in Orthognathic Surgery: The Role of Facial Implants

**Authors:** Gabriel Conceição Brito, Márcio de Moraes, Leonardo Faverani, Sergio Olate

PMC · DOI: 10.3390/cmtr19010002 · Craniomaxillofacial Trauma & Reconstruction · 2025-12-24

## TL;DR

Facial implants are used with orthognathic surgery to improve facial shape, but there are no clear guidelines on their use or long-term effects.

## Contribution

This study systematically reviews the use of facial implants in orthognathic surgery, highlighting material choices and current evidence gaps.

## Key findings

- Facial implants are commonly placed in regions like the malar, chin, and mandibular areas during orthognathic surgery.
- PEEK is often used for custom implants, while porous polyethylene is used for stock implants.
- The evidence base is limited due to methodological heterogeneity and a lack of standardized outcome measures.

## Abstract

Orthognathic surgery restores functional balance and facial esthetics in patients with dentofacial deformities. The use of adjunctive facial implants—made from materials such as porous polyethylene, titanium, or polyetheretherketone (PEEK)—has increased to enhance contour and projection, although standardized guidelines for their selection and integration remain scarce. Following PRISMA-ScR guidelines, a systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and LILACS identified studies reporting facial implants placed concomitantly with orthognathic surgery. Eligible studies included case reports, case series, observational studies, clinical trials, and reviews involving human patients, without language or date restrictions. Seventeen studies published between 1998 and 2025 met the inclusion criteria, comprising retrospective and prospective designs, case series, and one technical note. Implants were used in the malar, infraorbital, paranasal, chin, mandibular body, and angle regions. Materials included PEEK, porous polyethylene, silicone, hydroxyapatite, polymethylmethacrylate, and titanium. PEEK was mainly used for patient-specific implants, while porous polyethylene was commonly used as stock implants. Follow-up time, outcome reporting, and study design varied widely, reflecting substantial methodological heterogeneity and predominantly observational evidence. As a result, outcomes were primarily reported qualitatively, limiting comparative assessment and long-term inference. Overall, the available literature suggests that alloplastic facial implants may serve as useful adjuncts to orthognathic surgery for contour enhancement, with outcomes influenced by implant design, surgical expertise, fixation, and soft tissue conditions. However, the current evidence base remains limited, underscoring the need for standardized outcome measures, comparative studies, and longer follow-up to better inform clinical decision-making and future research.

## Linked entities

- **Chemicals:** silicone (PubChem CID 5461123), hydroxyapatite (PubChem CID 14781), titanium (PubChem CID 23963)

## Full-text entities

- **Diseases:** dentofacial deformities (MESH:D063169)
- **Chemicals:** polyethylene (MESH:D020959), silicone (MESH:D012828), hydroxyapatite (MESH:D017886), polymethylmethacrylate (MESH:D019904), PEEK (MESH:C063834), titanium (MESH:D014025)
- **Species:** Homo sapiens (human, species) [taxon 9606]

## Full text

_Full body text omitted from this summary view._ Fetch the complete paper as Markdown: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC12821587/full.md

## Figures

6 figures with captions in the complete paper: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC12821587/full.md

## References

48 references — full list in the complete paper: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC12821587/full.md

---
Source: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC12821587