الفهرس 
Nasal AnalysisOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 140 |  |  |
| | | from | 140 | | |
Abstract
The nose plays a fundamental role in harmonizing the facial proportion and as such, its reconstruction is paramount in restoring and normalizing the facial appearance. Dorsum defects of the nose not only create an undesirable aesthetical appearance but may lead to functional problems that seek surgical care. Augmentation rhinoplasty are used to repair dorsum defects. This can be achieved using alloplastic, homograft or autologous materials.
In this review, we investigated 280 articles to exculpate 24 outcomes reviewing the aesthetic outcomes, success, and complication rates of dorsal augmentation through various materials in the rhinoplasty. A range of original studies that aimed to investigate the topic of our study was included in our systemic review. Several outcomes were determined in this study including; secondary deformities, resorption, infection, displacement, breakup, wrapping, avulsion fracture, nasal obstruction, nasal length of the dorsum (preoperative and postoperative), a minor complication in general, a major complication in general, success rate, other outcomes, surgery revision, patient’s satisfaction, breathing nasal score, extrusion and other variables.
Our qualitative analysis proved that autologous cartilaginous graft was the most graft used for dorsal augmentation. We figured that infection is the most common complication of dorsal nasal augmentation and Medpore (alloplastic implant) is the most common implant complicated with infection.
Overall, our results showed the best implant to be used is alloplastic e-PTFE, followed by the silicone. Alloplastic expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (alloplastic e-PTFE) was considered first place, for having the highest graft scores in most of its outcomes; secondary deformity, resorption, patients’ satisfaction, displacement, extrusion, seroma, graft deviation, swelling, and hematoma outcomes with rates of. Alloplastic silicone came after e-PTFE, for its superior results in revision rhinoplasty, success rate, aesthetic function, and scarring outcomes.
While our results presented the alloplastic e-PTFE, most of our included results are including Asian patients which may switched the results towards the alloplastic implants. Therefore, we can sum up that our preference using the alloplastic e-PTFE is superior in case of autologous material are unavailable or insufficient.