Complications Following Alloplastic Chin Augmentation

Background Alloplastic implantation has become a popular method of chin augmentation. Historically, silicone was the most commonly used implant, but porous materials have grown in favor due to improved fibrovascularization and stability. Nevertheless, it is unclear which implant type has the most favorable complication profile. This systematic review aims to compare the complications of published chin implants and surgical approaches to provide data-driven recommendations for optimizing chin augmentation outcomes. Methods The PubMed® database was queried on March 14, 2021. We selected studies reporting data on alloplastic chin augmentation excluding additional procedures such as osseous genioplasty, fat grafting, autologous grafting, and fillers. The following complications were extracted from each article: malposition, infection, extrusion, revision, removal, paresthesias, and asymmetry. Results Among the 39 articles analyzed, the year of publication ranged from 1982 to 2020; additionally, 31 were retrospective case series, 5 were retrospective cohort or comparative studies, 2 were case reports, and 1 was a prospective case series. More than 3104 patients were included. Among the 11 implants reported, the 3 implants with the highest number of publications were silicone, high-density porous polyethylene (HDPE), and expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE). Silicone demonstrated the lowest rates of paresthesias (0.4%) compared to HDPE (20.1%, P < 0.01) and ePTFE (3.2%, P < 0.05). In contrast, there were no statistically significant differences in rates of implant malposition, infection, extrusion, revision, removal, or asymmetry when stratified by implant type. Various surgical approaches were also documented. Compared with subperiosteal implant placement, the dual-plane technique demonstrated higher rates of implant malposition (2.8% vs 0.5%, P < 0.04), revision (4.7% vs 1.0%, P < 0.001), and removal (4.7% vs 1.1%, P < 0.01), but a lower incidence of paresthesias (1.9% vs. 10.8%, P < 0.01). Compared with extraoral incisions, intraoral incisions resulted in higher rates of implant removal (1.5% vs 0.5%, P < 0.05) but lower rates of asymmetry (0.7% vs 7.5%, P < 0.01). Conclusion Silicone, HDPE, and ePTFE had low overall complication rates, demonstrating an acceptable safety profile regardless of implant selection. Surgical approach was found to significantly influence complications. Additional comparative studies on surgical approach while controlling for implant type would be beneficial for optimizing alloplastic chin augmentation practices.