Clinical Review

Current Concepts in Lip Augmentation

Author and Disclosure Information

 

References

Volume Restoration

Treatment Options

In 2015, hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers constituted 80% of all injectable soft-tissue fillers, an 8% increase from 2014.11 Hyaluronic acid has achieved immense popularity as a temporary dermal filler given its biocompatibility, longevity, and reversibility via hyaluronidase.12

Hyaluronic acid is a naturally occurring glycosaminoglycan that comprises the connective tissue matrix. The molecular composition affords HA its hydrophilic property, which augments dermal volume.7 Endogenous HA has a short half-life, and chemical modification by a cross-linking process extends longevity by 6 to 12 months. The various HA fillers are distinguished by method of purification, size of molecules, concentration and degree of cross-linking, and viscosity.7,13,14 These differences dictate overall clinical performance such as flow properties, longevity, and stability. As a general rule, a high-viscosity product is more appropriate for deeper augmentation; fillers with low viscosity are more appropriate for correction of shallow defects.1 Table 1 lists the HA fillers that are currently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for lip augmentation and/or perioral rhytides in adults 21 years and older.15-17

Randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy, longevity, and tolerability of different HA products are lacking in the literature and, where present, have strong industry influence.18,19 The advent of assessment scales has provided an objective evaluation of perioral and lip augmentation, facilitating comparisons between products in both clinical research and practice.20

Semipermanent biostimulatory dermal fillers such as calcium hydroxylapatite and poly-L-lactic acid are not recommended for lip augmentation due to an increased incidence of submucosal nodule formation.6,14,21 Likewise, permanent fillers are not recommended given their irreversibility and risk of nodule formation around the lips.14,22 Nonetheless, liquid silicone (purified polydimethylsiloxane) administered via a microdroplet technique (0.01 mL of silicone at a time, no more than 1 cc per lip per session) has been used off label as a permanent filling agent for lip augmentation with limited complications.23 Regardless, trepidations about its use with respect to reported risks continue to limit its application.22

Similarly, surgical lip implants such as expanded polytetrafluoroethylene is an option for a subset of patients desiring permanent enhancement but are less commonly utilized given the side-effect profile, irreversibility, and relatively invasive nature of the procedure.22 Lastly, autologous fat transfer has been used in correction of the nasolabial and mesolabial folds as well as in lip augmentation; however, irregular surface contours and unpredictable longevity secondary to postinjection resorption (20%–90%) has limited its popularity.3,14,21

HA Injection Technique

With respect to HA fillers in the perioral area, numerous approaches have been described.10,22 The techniques in Table 2 provide a foundation for lip rejuvenation.

Several injection techniques exist, including serial puncture, linear threading, cross-hatching, and fanning in a retrograde or anterograde manner.24 A blunt microcannula (27 gauge, 38 mm) may be used in place of sharp needles and offers the benefit of increased patient comfort, reduced edema and ecchymosis, and shortened recovery period.25,26 Gentle massage of the product after injection can assist with an even contour. Lastly, a key determinant of successful outcomes is using an adequate volume of HA filler (1–2 mL for shaping the vermilion border and volumizing the lips).27 Figure 2 highlights a clinical example of HA filler for lip augmentation.

Figure 2. A 51-year-old woman who presented for lip augmentation before (A) and immediately after injection of 0.3 mL of a hyaluronic acid filler into the lip body and vermilion (B).

Fortunately, most complications encountered with HA lip augmentation are mild and transient. The most commonly observed side effects include injection-site reactions such as pain, erythema, and edema. Similarly, most adverse effects are related to injection technique. All HA fillers are prone to the Tyndall effect, a consequence of too superficial an injection plane. Patients with history of recurrent herpes simplex virus infections should receive prophylactic antiviral therapy.12

Muscle Control

An emerging concept in rejuvenation of the lower face recognizes not only restoration of volume but also control of muscle movement. Local injection of botulinum toxin type A induces relaxation of hyperfunctional facial muscles through temporary inhibition of neurotransmitter release.6 The potential for paralysis of the oral cavity may limit the application of botulinum toxin type A in that region.7 Nonetheless, the off-label potential of botulinum toxin type A has expanded to include several targets in the lower face. The orbicularis oris muscle is targeted to soften perioral rhytides. Conservative dosing (1–2 U per lip quadrant or approximately 5 U total) and superficial injection is emphasized in this area.27 Similarly, the depressor anguli oris muscle is targeted by injection of 4 U bilaterally to soften the marionette lines. In the chin area, the mentalis muscle can be targeted by injection of 2 U deep into each belly of the muscle to reduce the mental crease and dimpling.28 Combination treatment with dermal filler and neurotoxin demonstrates effects that last longer than either modality alone without additional adverse events.29 With combination therapy, guidelines suggest treating with filler first.27

Conclusion

A greater understanding of the extrinsic and intrinsic factors that contribute to the structural and surface changes of the aging face coupled with a preference for minimally invasive procedures has revolutionized the dermatologist’s approach to perioral rejuvenation. Serving as a focal point of the face, the lips and perioral skin are well poised to benefit from this paradigm shift. A multifaceted approach utilizing dermal fillers and neurotoxins may be most appropriate and has demonstrated optimal outcomes in facial aesthetics.

Pages

Recommended Reading

Filler agents may improve QOL in HIV facial lipoatrophy
MDedge Dermatology
Cosmetic Corner: Dermatologists Weigh in on Acne Scar Treatments
MDedge Dermatology
Update on argan oil
MDedge Dermatology
Study finds picosecond laser, with diffractive lens array, effective wrinkle treatment
MDedge Dermatology
Topical anticholinergic for axillary hyperhidrosis hits marks in phase III
MDedge Dermatology
Postinflammatory erythema
MDedge Dermatology
Lip Augmentation With Juvéderm Ultra XC
MDedge Dermatology
Chemical Peels
MDedge Dermatology
Renewal in Cosmetic Dermatology
MDedge Dermatology
Reasons Behind the Ink
MDedge Dermatology

Related Articles