Author Topic: Hydroxyapatite clarification  (Read 4739 times)

earl25

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 409
  • Karma: 52
Hydroxyapatite clarification
« on: April 20, 2016, 07:50:03 PM »
Ok I'm currently thinking of getting hydroxyapatite to my orbital rims for a bit more projection and my upper brow.

I hear so many different things from Dr.'s and real life. Some say hydroxyapatite is the most natural of any material, other say it isn't. Some say it  can get infected, others say infection is very rare. There are also different types of hydroxyapatite and techniques. Some on here say go with bio-oss instead but bio-oss if just hydroxyapatite made from bovine instead of coral.

Also the doctor I spoke with mixed hydroxyapatite with blood and a clotting agent.

I hear dr. z hates hydroxyapatite did he specify why and more info

falcao

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 226
  • Karma: 23
Re: Hydroxyapatite clarification
« Reply #1 on: April 20, 2016, 08:12:18 PM »
Well I hate to repeat myself but here you go: Z hates hydroxyapatite because he sees too many cases that come to him with complications after infections which can be acute (where you end up in hospital) and chronic (which create a lower level constant or recurring inflammatory response in the body). I've had both types.

Second thing - when he opened me up to clear the s**t, he found the bone underneath seriously compromised (softened, fragile). He said this is not uncommon. But of course you don't see it on an x-ray, so unless you open up the person and see what's going on in there you won't know it. And you won't open the person unless you have to (as in my case). So this may be a wide-spread common side effect that is not documented and no one but few surgeons who see revision cases know about it. My second surgery (I've had 4, 3 of which big) lasted more than 6 hours, most of it to remove the s**t.

If you think my case is just bad luck, think again - he says he sees patients with complications so often that he doesn't know what quite to do with them - he ends up accepting them because there are not many others who would. I've personally heard of several cases that ended up in hospital like me after acute infections.

Mommaerts, AKA the Butcher in Brussels, also mixes the HA with blood and a clotting agent. So, there you go, the same s**t you are contemplating.

Bio-oss, and again I am repeating myself, MAY be better - I don't know for a fact that it is, but surgeons that do their homework in terms of research and practice a lot tend to prefer it, from what I've heard. Don't be naive, it's not only about the material. It's also about how it is actually processed and produced. Z told me that the patent for bio-oss is still a commercial secret so no one really knows how it is superior but practice shows it is.

The surgeon in Spain told me most surgeons abandoned HA back in the 1990s because of the frequent complications that they saw.

Why don't you contact Z? I'm sure he would talk to you if you explain your history to him.

PloskoPlus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3044
  • Karma: 140
Re: Hydroxyapatite clarification
« Reply #2 on: April 20, 2016, 08:18:54 PM »
AFAIK, gunson uses ha mixed with blood and a clotting agent and applies it at the time of jaw surgery, which according to some is a big no no, since "that's the only time it can get infected due to oral bacteria".

Molestrip mentioned a craniofacial surgeon in texas who uses demineralized bone for augmentation, whatever it is.

falcao

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 226
  • Karma: 23
Re: Hydroxyapatite clarification
« Reply #3 on: April 20, 2016, 08:47:02 PM »
AFAIK, gunson uses ha mixed with blood and a clotting agent and applies it at the time of jaw surgery, which according to some is a big no no, since "that's the only time it can get infected due to oral bacteria".

Molestrip mentioned a craniofacial surgeon in texas who uses demineralized bone for augmentation, whatever it is.


It sounds like HA. Maybe you'd rather have something bovine than mineral for grafting purposes, I don't know. I mean,a cow is more like human in evolutionary sense than a coral is.

Even if you end up with no complications, will the effect of it be significant enough cosmetically? And what about the low level inflammatory response from your body, which can affect your health in the long run but you may never know or associate it with the HA in your body? I've been thinking about the latter, because I still have HA on my face. My second surgery with Z (after the one where he removed most of it) showed that there are still traces of it along my jaw - he thought it best not to remove it this time because as he said "it's better not to wake up sleeping dogs". I also have it in my paranasal area as it was never removed from there. I can report the skin in that area looks inflamed from time to time (red and very itchy), so I've always thought there was something going on underneath.

earl25

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 409
  • Karma: 52
Re: Hydroxyapatite clarification
« Reply #4 on: April 20, 2016, 09:13:48 PM »
Well I hate to repeat myself but here you go: Z hates hydroxyapatite because he sees too many cases that come to him with complications after infections which can be acute (where you end up in hospital) and chronic (which create a lower level constant or recurring inflammatory response in the body). I've had both types.

Second thing - when he opened me up to clear the s**t, he found the bone underneath seriously compromised (softened, fragile). He said this is not uncommon. But of course you don't see it on an x-ray, so unless you open up the person and see what's going on in there you won't know it. And you won't open the person unless you have to (as in my case). So this may be a wide-spread common side effect that is not documented and no one but few surgeons who see revision cases know about it. My second surgery (I've had 4, 3 of which big) lasted more than 6 hours, most of it to remove the s**t.

If you think my case is just bad luck, think again - he says he sees patients with complications so often that he doesn't know what quite to do with them - he ends up accepting them because there are not many others who would. I've personally heard of several cases that ended up in hospital like me after acute infections.

Mommaerts, AKA the Butcher in Brussels, also mixes the HA with blood and a clotting agent. So, there you go, the same s**t you are contemplating.

Bio-oss, and again I am repeating myself, MAY be better - I don't know for a fact that it is, but surgeons that do their homework in terms of research and practice a lot tend to prefer it, from what I've heard. Don't be naive, it's not only about the material. It's also about how it is actually processed and produced. Z told me that the patent for bio-oss is still a commercial secret so no one really knows how it is superior but practice shows it is.

The surgeon in Spain told me most surgeons abandoned HA back in the 1990s because of the frequent complications that they saw.

Why don't you contact Z? I'm sure he would talk to you if you expl''ain your history to him.

I will reach out to z

You had it in your jaw right, is there a possibility that the bone softness was due to the movement in the jaw area?

I have read studies with it used in forehead and no major injection or resorption was reported.

I do think it might be possible you just were sensitive to it . I have  HA in my paranasal area from dr guyuron. granted its a small amount but theres no redness on my skin or signs of inflammation

I'm mean ive read of people having silicone implants with diff doctors and each time they got infected. I do think some people are more sensitive to materials then others I had silicone malars ad had 3mm resorption in 2.5 years. that's not normal for malar even silicone.

ill talk to z and report back

Lazlo

  • Private
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3004
  • Karma: 175
Re: Hydroxyapatite clarification
« Reply #5 on: April 20, 2016, 11:37:38 PM »
Okay, here you go:

--A former head of maxillofacial academy of north america, Dr. Cameron Clokie, told me he's removed HA paste from the cheekbones and that it had compromised the bone underneath it.

--demineralized bone is NOT HA paste, it's the same s**t Sailer uses, it's human bone, he calls it lyocartillege or some s**t

--Arnett said it become indistinguishable from bone and of course he uses a ton of it but he adds blood to it and has a sort of proprietary mix.

--Dear Earl, I'm asking you again, who is the doctor you're using? If you don't want to say publically please PM me. Thank you.


earl25

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 409
  • Karma: 52
Re: Hydroxyapatite clarification
« Reply #6 on: July 01, 2016, 11:34:45 AM »
It sounds like HA. Maybe you'd rather have something bovine than mineral for grafting purposes, I don't know. I mean,a cow is more like human in evolutionary sense than a coral is.

Even if you end up with no complications, will the effect of it be significant enough cosmetically? And what about the low level inflammatory response from your body, which can affect your health in the long run but you may never know or associate it with the HA in your body? I've been thinking about the latter, because I still have HA on my face. My second surgery with Z (after the one where he removed most of it) showed that there are still traces of it along my jaw - he thought it best not to remove it this time because as he said "it's better not to wake up sleeping dogs". I also have it in my paranasal area as it was never removed from there. I can report the skin in that area looks inflamed from time to time (red and very itchy), so I've always thought there was something going on underneath.

Falcao, do you know how much ha you had applied?

Have you looked into dmso to maybe help your inflamation issue

earl25

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 409
  • Karma: 52
Re: Hydroxyapatite clarification
« Reply #7 on: July 01, 2016, 11:43:00 AM »
One thing im confused aboutï is on de defrenq site he claims hes biopsied ha cheek areas . Could the ha isse just be related to mommaerts being a butcher?

http://www.facialsculptureclinic.com/en/surgery/jaw-surgery/cheek-bones/

stupidjaws

  • CFO
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
  • Karma: 46
  • The panic the vomit the yuppies networking
Re: Hydroxyapatite clarification
« Reply #8 on: July 04, 2016, 12:26:39 AM »
i will trust dr. z on this. every surgeon will try to sell you his s**t.
Zarrinbal was categoric about HA when i talked to him about it.

JimmyTheGent

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 232
  • Karma: 8
  • Gender: Male
  • Im likely the reason your Karma is so high.
Re: Hydroxyapatite clarification
« Reply #9 on: July 04, 2016, 02:57:17 PM »
If HA paste can cause bone loss and infection then what is a safe alternative? I need cheekbones!!
The more I learn about the gamble that is jaw surgery the more afraid I become!!!   :-(

boyo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
  • Karma: 8
Re: Hydroxyapatite clarification
« Reply #10 on: July 04, 2016, 04:21:08 PM »
If HA paste can cause bone loss and infection then what is a safe alternative? I need cheekbones!!

http://tinypic.com/player.php?v=nq7csh&s=9#.V3rvSjWjt_k

ismic

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
  • Karma: 15
Re: Hydroxyapatite clarification
« Reply #11 on: July 05, 2016, 04:57:29 AM »

molestrip

  • Private
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 735
  • Karma: 40
Re: Hydroxyapatite clarification
« Reply #12 on: July 07, 2016, 11:17:49 AM »
I've done a lot of research into bone grafting the past few weeks and it's way more interesting that I expected. There's a lot to them, how it's processed, where it's being applied, how big the defect is, etc. There is no perfect bone graft. PBHA is FDA approved for jaw surgery as an interpositional graft and is the most widely used material today. It has been studied over 15 years after application and the complication rate is very low. It has been used in other applications for 3 decades now and does cause problems on occasion.

Demineralized bone is just cadaver bone that's had all the minerals removed so you're left with cartilage and growth factors. The latter is what's significant since it integrates so quickly with surrounding bone taking only 6 weeks to heal vs 4mo for PBHA. That's because DBX is mildly osseoinductive. It may be resorbable, honestly I think these surgeons know less about this s**t than they think they do. Most of them don't sit around nights reading papers obsessively like we (or maybe just I) do. The guys most familiar with this stuff or those who specialize in implants and sinus lifts actually. The other reason PBHA is so popular is that it's extremely stable. HA is normally resorbable but PBHA is sintered (heated to high temperatures) which eliminates that property, resorbing only 2-5% per year. On the flip side, it's similar to cancellous bone so soft tissues grow through it more readily, which is why you rarely hear of someone losing feeling in their palate or teeth when used. Actually most of the time the graft isn't needed, as bony gaps up to 3-4mm should heal on their own and the plates provide most of the structure. b-TCP is promising but again is not new. It's resorption is much of the problem, as an interpositional graft it's not great because it resorbs too quickly. For cheekbones may be ok because incomplete augmentation only results in a small cosmetic defect. Xilloc is claiming it's their technique for shaping it that makes it better. I don't know what this "bone fluid" is that they're referring to. Bone marrow maybe?

Bio-OSS looks ok to me. Has similar issues to cadaver and DBX, foreign proteins can cause an immune reaction. I believe it's resorbable, not sure. Personally, the fewer complicated materials I have in me the better. Some surgeons say HA was abandoned because of the problems, other say because the results were terrible. Infection and rejection can happen at any time, decades later even. I know that with all these materials, once bone grows into it then it can be hard if not impossible to remove. The maxillary grafts should be easy to swap out but then all the tissue that grew through it will go with it, likes the nerves feeding the teeth and palate. Ugh.

What I was told about DBX as an interpositional graft is that the surgeon who uses it has been using it for 10-15 years and hasn't had any problems. He used to use PBHA but scoffed when I suggested it like it was old technology. He thinks HA grafts will cause problems down the line and that's why he switched. He's done like 5000 surgeries, comparable or more than most of the other big names we see here so he has the data to back up his position. I do know some of the surgeons who use PBHA have a tendency to downplay their negative results.

I've come across a bunch of other interesting materials and techniques, so many you can't possibly research them all and no way a surgeon can evaluate them. Surgeons find something that works and tend to stick with it.

Honestly, we're better off not knowing this s**t and just enjoying life lol.

Lazlo

  • Private
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3004
  • Karma: 175
Re: Hydroxyapatite clarification
« Reply #13 on: July 07, 2016, 02:01:54 PM »
Wow thanks for all the clarification. Molestrip you're amazing. I do think though you have to take a leap of faith at some point. I am pretty confident HA from coral has very low complications. As far as predictable aesthetic results that's what I'm not sure about.

One question though, HA from coral either blocks or granules that doesn't resorb when placed as only augmentation does it? I was told it does not.

earl25

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 409
  • Karma: 52
Re: Hydroxyapatite clarification
« Reply #14 on: July 07, 2016, 04:30:40 PM »
It sounds like HA. Maybe you'd rather have something bovine than mineral for grafting purposes, I don't know. I mean,a cow is more like human in evolutionary sense than a coral is.

Even if you end up with no complications, will the effect of it be significant enough cosmetically? And what about the low level inflammatory response from your body, which can affect your health in the long run but you may never know or associate it with the HA in your body? I've been thinking about the latter, because I still have HA on my face. My second surgery with Z (after the one where he removed most of it) showed that there are still traces of it along my jaw - he thought it best not to remove it this time because as he said "it's better not to wake up sleeping dogs". I also have it in my paranasal area as it was never removed from there. I can report the skin in that area looks inflamed from time to time (red and very itchy), so I've always thought there was something going on underneath.

is it possible mm f**ked up your bones under the HA during surgery and just used HA to fix and cover in it.could that be the cause for soft bones

eppley just wrote up a whole HA article on his blog regarding safety