WE need to TALK ABOUT CHEEKBONES

[kavan]

Could you explain this a little further please. Are you basically saying that the problem is the distance between the orbits i.e. that the person needs to widen the orbits via something like orbital box surgery before they can really see a solid result?

No. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that it's hard to compensate for structure when the outside structure is contingent on the orientation of the inner orbits.

[Lazlo]

No. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that it's hard to compensate for structure when the outside structure is contingent on the orientation of the inner orbits.

so what's the fix?

[Lestat]

so what's the fix?

Looks promising:

- "With CG Bio’s product, patients can feel reassured that their implants are as close as possible to natural bone, and that they won’t likely have any complications that can make their condition worse."

- "Unlike polymers or metals, BGS-7 bonds directly with bones when transplanted into a human body, and creates stronger bonds with bones than other bioceramics. It also has minimal risk of side effects or complications, and won’t be rejected by the body after reconstructive surgery."

https://3dprint.com/210215/cg-bio-3d-printed-cheekbones/

[Lestat]

- "CG Bio gets safety certification for 3D printed cheekbones

Korean 3D bio-printing expert CG Bio has received certification from the country’s Ministry of Food and Drug Safety to market its 3D printed cheekbone implants. The cheekbones are fabricated using 3D printing and BGS-7, a bioactive glass material developed and patented by CG Bio.
BGS-7 offers huge advantages over conventional metal or polymer-based materials, as it is compatible with organic tissue, and can form bonds with bone. The strong bonds that it forms minimize side effects or complications after reconstructive surgeries, without any foreign body reaction.
CG Bio makes use of locally-sourced materials at every stage of the manufacturing process.
''It is Korea’s first-ever 3D printing system using bioceramics that are (the) most bone-friendly. We will keep developing our technologies to apply the product to various bone losses,'' said Yoo Hyun-seung, CEO of CG Bio."

https://www.3ders.org/articles/20180410-news-roundup-cg-bios-3d-printed-cheekbones-cellink-dws-systems-hp-massivits-3d-printed-ski-boot-post-process.html

Can someone with academic access please look for scientific studies on this material?

[Lazlo]

- "CG Bio gets safety certification for 3D printed cheekbones

Korean 3D bio-printing expert CG Bio has received certification from the country’s Ministry of Food and Drug Safety to market its 3D printed cheekbone implants. The cheekbones are fabricated using 3D printing and BGS-7, a bioactive glass material developed and patented by CG Bio.
BGS-7 offers huge advantages over conventional metal or polymer-based materials, as it is compatible with organic tissue, and can form bonds with bone. The strong bonds that it forms minimize side effects or complications after reconstructive surgeries, without any foreign body reaction.
CG Bio makes use of locally-sourced materials at every stage of the manufacturing process.
''It is Korea’s first-ever 3D printing system using bioceramics that are (the) most bone-friendly. We will keep developing our technologies to apply the product to various bone losses,'' said Yoo Hyun-seung, CEO of CG Bio."

https://www.3ders.org/articles/20180410-news-roundup-cg-bios-3d-printed-cheekbones-cellink-dws-systems-hp-massivits-3d-printed-ski-boot-post-process.html

Can someone with academic access please look for scientific studies on this material?

Sure this is interesting info. Shows new techs are doing things. But come on, this is just another HA type bulls**t. I'm asking about biological regeneration. I wouldn't even though this s**t unless there was a biological version.

[Lestat]

Dr. Sinn was unheard of till what's his name found him and even then b*tches he was the first guy to ever get that surgery --it was the first one Dr. SInn did and just sort of made up how to do it.

What I mean to say is there's no expertise in it either and so nobody does anythign regularly. I doubt Wolfe has done more than a handful. And guess what, Sinn has done only 2.

So why the f**k are you haters still believing this procedure is something that is possible or done?

You claim dr. Sinn invented this operation and did it only twice?

Sinn's surgery is too weak. Only causes a bit of enhancement to the orbital rim, doesn nothing for the cheekbones or anything else. Doesn't even address the side.

Sinn's modified lefort 3 is borderline useless.

But there is literally NO solution right now. Let's say you get sinn's MFL3 plus 2 ZSO's you're still like just borderline better. No one has shown pics to prove differently.

And what about the Obwegeser girl?

[kavan]

You claim dr. Sinn invented this operation and did it only twice?

Maybe Lazlo got sloppy seconds.

[kavan]

so what's the fix?

Lowered expectations.

[Lestat]

There is an interesting statement from Eppley regarding the LeFort III Osteotomy:

https://www.eppleyplasticsurgery.com/lefort-iii-osteotomy/

I can't help feeling we're going around in circles.

Since no biological facial implants are currently available, osteotomies remain the only option (in order to stay "natural"). My personal favorite is the ZSO (because it is done regularly and reliably by some surgeons).

In case someone thinks otherwise, do not hesitate to contact Dr. Wolfe or Dr. Obwegeser and convince me of the opposite.

[kavan]

There is an interesting statement from Eppley regarding the LeFort III Osteotomy:

https://www.eppleyplasticsurgery.com/lefort-iii-osteotomy/

I can't help feeling we're going around in circles.

Since no biological facial implants are currently available, osteotomies remain the only option (in order to stay "natural"). My personal favorite is the ZSO (because it is done regularly and reliably by some surgeons).

In case someone thinks otherwise, do not hesitate to contact Dr. Wolfe or Dr. Obwegeser and convince me of the opposite.

What's 'interesting' (at least to me) about Eppley's blog entry is that the person asking a question to him, QUOTES somewhat of a STUPID statement. (I Googled where the statement appeared elsewhere. It came from 'Slut Hate' forums and associated with a '3D facial analysis' poster.) The stupid statement contends that recession of the orbital rims also 'means' the eyeballs themselves are recessed and a Lefort3 'pushes the eyeballs forward'.

So Eppley clarifies the basic concept, the most salient of it being that L3 corrects BULGING eyes by bringing the bone structure forward and NOT the eyeballs themselves. Although the person asking the question via PROXY of a STUPID quote, may not know (not knowing something is OK) the eyeballs are FIXED in place, the stupidity in the quoted statement is in the assumption that a procedure aimed at CORRECTING the look of BULGING eyes ALSO projects the eyeballs FORWARD.

Although he points out the L3 procedure isn't as 'simple and clean as shown in a diagram', there are many people (usually 'cross pollinators' from similar site the dumb quote was pulled from) who DON'T even LOOK at the L3 diagram to observe the ENTIRE area (or all the areas) it brings forward, eg. those wanting the ENTIRE L3 just to bring forward only one area it brings forward but not needing the other areas it brings forward.

https://entokey.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/S07_fig6_2.jpg

As to your other question: '...what about the Obwegeser girl?', I think she got the whole L3. Although she was not as syndromatic as others who get the whole L3, ALL the areas of her face that had recession were in the area the L3 addresses. IMO, she had a NICE inherent SHAPE to her bone structure at the L3 area. The only problem with it was it was backwards.

As you know, a modified L3 is not the 'whole' L3. It's quite possible that a modification of it  that worked out well for one patient might not work out as well for another patient. Like any other bone cutting surgery, all it's doing is moving around someone's INHERENT structural shape. There are some people who have a nice inherent SHAPE to a part of their bone structure where the only thing (or most of the problem with it) is that it's TOO FAR backwards. So, it's going to work better on those who have the types of shapes that are going to look very good when brought forward or displaced in what ever way the procedure can displace them. That's a whole lot DIFFERENT than some who might need to have an area totally RE-SHAPED where the type of re-shaping that would enhance their aesthetic most isn't one a bone cut surgery is aimed at doing.

[GJ]

Lowered expectations.

Haha.

[Lazlo]

What's 'interesting' (at least to me) about Eppley's blog entry is that the person asking a question to him, QUOTES somewhat of a STUPID statement. (I Googled where the statement appeared elsewhere. It came from 'Slut Hate' forums and associated with a '3D facial analysis' poster.) The stupid statement contends that recession of the orbital rims also 'means' the eyeballs themselves are recessed and a Lefort3 'pushes the eyeballs forward'.

So Eppley clarifies the basic concept, the most salient of it being that L3 corrects BULGING eyes by bringing the bone structure forward and NOT the eyeballs themselves. Although the person asking the question via PROXY of a STUPID quote, may not know (not knowing something is OK) the eyeballs are FIXED in place, the stupidity in the quoted statement is in the assumption that a procedure aimed at CORRECTING the look of BULGING eyes ALSO projects the eyeballs FORWARD.

Although he points out the L3 procedure isn't as 'simple and clean as shown in a diagram', there are many people (usually 'cross pollinators' from similar site the dumb quote was pulled from) who DON'T even LOOK at the L3 diagram to observe the ENTIRE area (or all the areas) it brings forward, eg. those wanting the ENTIRE L3 just to bring forward only one area it brings forward but not needing the other areas it brings forward.

https://entokey.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/S07_fig6_2.jpg

As to your other question: '...what about the Obwegeser girl?', I think she got the whole L3. Although she was not as syndromatic as others who get the whole L3, ALL the areas of her face that had recession were in the area the L3 addresses. IMO, she had a NICE inherent SHAPE to her bone structure at the L3 area. The only problem with it was it was backwards.

As you know, a modified L3 is not the 'whole' L3. It's quite possible that a modification of it  that worked out well for one patient might not work out as well for another patient. Like any other bone cutting surgery, all it's doing is moving around someone's INHERENT structural shape. There are some people who have a nice inherent SHAPE to a part of their bone structure where the only thing (or most of the problem with it) is that it's TOO FAR backwards. So, it's going to work better on those who have the types of shapes that are going to look very good when brought forward or displaced in what ever way the procedure can displace them. That's a whole lot DIFFERENT than some who might need to have an area totally RE-SHAPED where the type of re-shaping that would enhance their aesthetic most isn't one a bone cut surgery is aimed at doing.

Yeah lol. I know the thing about the bulging eyes is retarded.

That's why I prefer to not say modifiled lefort 3 even though its become the parlance of this board. For me malar osteotomy or orbital rim and zygoma osteotomy specify exactly what you want advanced.

[kavan]

Yeah lol. I know the thing about the bulging eyes is retarded.

That's why I prefer to not say modifiled lefort 3 even though its become the parlance of this board. For me malar osteotomy or orbital rim and zygoma osteotomy specify exactly what you want advanced.

Not a bad word preference.

[ForeverAloneDude]

There is an interesting statement from Eppley regarding the LeFort III Osteotomy:

https://www.eppleyplasticsurgery.com/lefort-iii-osteotomy/

I can't help feeling we're going around in circles.

Since no biological facial implants are currently available, osteotomies remain the only option (in order to stay "natural"). My personal favorite is the ZSO (because it is done regularly and reliably by some surgeons).

In case someone thinks otherwise, do not hesitate to contact Dr. Wolfe or Dr. Obwegeser and convince me of the opposite.

Sigh I wish one day we can move eyeballs around too. I'm guessing even coming into contact with any nerves including optic nerves is catastrophic so moving nerves around etc isn't an option.

[ditterbo]

The output (results) would be 'inconsistent' because the input (start point) will vary from person to person. In terms of VARIANCE of facial bone structure, EXTERNAL facial bones that also make up part of the INTERNAL eye orbit vary the MOST and BECAUSE external facial structure is CONTINGENT on the growth direction going on in the INTERNAL orbit, one can't expect 'consistency' regarding an external aesthetic result. Since the zygomatic bone is part of the INTERNAL eye orbit, it's EXTERNAL orientation will be a FUNCTION of it's INTERNAL orientation. Not only that, it's connected to other facial bones in the internal orbit, eg. maxilla, frontal where the maxilla is is the most complex facial bone in terms of shape and also shape variance from person to person.

In a bone cutting cheek procedure or even one with implants the displacements will be made to the EXTERNAL part of the bone. So, the changes you see with the procedure will be relative to the INTERNAL eye socket; the bone orientation within. If the bone growth directions and orientation within the INTERNAL eye socket 'are what they are', the EXTERNAL outcome will be 'what it is'.

Found an interesting youtube video that goes into some aspects of the eye orbit. I think he's a JSF and/or lookism follower, since I recognize a lot of the faces used as examples.  The channel may be of value too: youtube.com/watch?v=9kH15-u_hnM

Because I really want cheek implants to be more viable options, I'll briefly play devils advocate to what seems the general consensus here on cheek implants.  Albeit I'm still researching this as I have time, but if we're arguing implants look worse as you age, then why do old people also get facial implants and they look ok/normal? Implants maybe make you look better for longer since they provide additional scaffolding for the soft tissue as well.  Are there any examples on the web we could examine showing people with anatomical implants looking worse with age? Anatomical implants are fairly recent advancements, so you wouldn't see many old people with that off-the-shelf design from an implant surgery from the 80s or 90s.  Also, creating custom implants based on a CT scan model of your skull is also fairly new technology, no?  I would imagine that modest sized, CT-scan customized facial implants, designed with facial aging in mind, would remain natural looking throughout ones life (except maybe when the skull really loses mass like age 50+).  Easier said than done but maybe some doctors out there know how to achieve that outcome with custom implants. Maybe?