D
Deleted member 18582
Poet laureate of the deep state
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2022
- Posts
- 16,136
- Reputation
- 15,374
When I look on Eppley's website I'm stunned at the variety of the custom implant shapes. Most I see posted here almost all look to practically cover the same area--the infraorbital-zygomatic regions. How does one decide if they need to go lower, i.e., include the submalar region? It's common knowledge by now that standard off-the-shelf cheek implants, which cover exclusively the submalar region, which has a feminizing effect and therefore unadvisable for most men, are.
Most I see here tend to look more or less like this, just with a few mm difference in lateral and anterior projection:
For example, for one case Eppley says:
"An effective strategy for the high cheekbone look is to keep the implant design high up along the cheekbone staying clear of the submalar bone area leaving it uncovered."
But then we have this (standard cheek implant on the left, Eppley's design on the right): "Normally standard cheek implants in a male rarely create a favorable aesthetic outcome, creating an undesired ‘apple cheek’ fullness effect. But in this male they were very favorable due to his significant midface deficiency and negative orbital vector. But they did not add to his infraorbital rim deficiency (actually made it more apparent) and did not have volume high up on the cheekbone area. Custom infraorbital-malar implants were designed that retained what the current cheek implant effects created and then added where they were deficient. This created an unusual looking type of midface implant but a very effective aesthetic one."
One that blends into the LeFort I area
How does one determine if one has such a "significant midface deficiency" that you need to extend the custom infraorbital-zygomatic implant into the submalar region? Or is it more or less advisable in all cases that we don't need to touch this region at all? Perhaps it is is best since if you augment exclusively this area you get a more pronounced ogee curve and the area just beneath seems more hollow--but is it a male-model esque hollowness or a middle-midface-hypoplasia-esque hollowness? Do you still want to augment this area as well, even if you are still augmenting the zygos and infras even more?
Most I see here tend to look more or less like this, just with a few mm difference in lateral and anterior projection:
For example, for one case Eppley says:
"An effective strategy for the high cheekbone look is to keep the implant design high up along the cheekbone staying clear of the submalar bone area leaving it uncovered."
But then we have this (standard cheek implant on the left, Eppley's design on the right): "Normally standard cheek implants in a male rarely create a favorable aesthetic outcome, creating an undesired ‘apple cheek’ fullness effect. But in this male they were very favorable due to his significant midface deficiency and negative orbital vector. But they did not add to his infraorbital rim deficiency (actually made it more apparent) and did not have volume high up on the cheekbone area. Custom infraorbital-malar implants were designed that retained what the current cheek implant effects created and then added where they were deficient. This created an unusual looking type of midface implant but a very effective aesthetic one."
One that blends into the LeFort I area
How does one determine if one has such a "significant midface deficiency" that you need to extend the custom infraorbital-zygomatic implant into the submalar region? Or is it more or less advisable in all cases that we don't need to touch this region at all? Perhaps it is is best since if you augment exclusively this area you get a more pronounced ogee curve and the area just beneath seems more hollow--but is it a male-model esque hollowness or a middle-midface-hypoplasia-esque hollowness? Do you still want to augment this area as well, even if you are still augmenting the zygos and infras even more?
Last edited:
