sabafill
korean
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2024
- Posts
- 34
- Reputation
- 21
Bit of a clickbait title, there are many recorded cases of bone erosion in the chin & jaw area. However, I want to bring up nuances that many users overlook: how silicone works in the upper jaw (orbitals & maxilla)
(I have no problem affording silicone or PEEK, so I have no biases. In a way, I would prefer to use PEEK. I don't want silicone in my face either
)
Many users here see chin bone erosion and incorrectly assume it applies to every other part of the face. I'm not gonna get into the specifics, but the chin and jaw differ in the constant & shifting forces applied (I don't believe this is an "erosion" process, and more an "imprint" like Eppley suggests). This does not apply to upper jaw implants with more coverage & less pressure.
In a study of 329 (including orbital + maxilla w/o orbital), ZERO people reported bone resorption. Also in this study, PEEK was actually the material with the most complications (not aesthetically though).
If we're talking purely aesthetically, silicone might also win here. If you understand basic hardmaxxing, you should know that PEEK is a hard material, and therefore less feathering capability. On the other hand, silicone is softer, easily featherable, and adjustable. With the undereye skin being so thin, every MM matters, and silicone seems more fit for creating a natural step-off + an easier fallback.
Heres my personal caveat with silicone: peace of mind. I think personally I'd much rather have PEEK, looks cooler, harder, more premium, and the material properties itself are favorable. Not to mention, most of this is somewhat speculative and I'd have to rope if it somehow eroded my midface. The only thing keeping me researching is that I want to get the implant, and be done with no worries of possible complications.
However, realistically silicone seems to be a lot better than PEEK for most upper jaw implants, especially for most wagecels. Thoughts?
(I have no problem affording silicone or PEEK, so I have no biases. In a way, I would prefer to use PEEK. I don't want silicone in my face either
)Many users here see chin bone erosion and incorrectly assume it applies to every other part of the face. I'm not gonna get into the specifics, but the chin and jaw differ in the constant & shifting forces applied (I don't believe this is an "erosion" process, and more an "imprint" like Eppley suggests). This does not apply to upper jaw implants with more coverage & less pressure.
In a study of 329 (including orbital + maxilla w/o orbital), ZERO people reported bone resorption. Also in this study, PEEK was actually the material with the most complications (not aesthetically though).
If we're talking purely aesthetically, silicone might also win here. If you understand basic hardmaxxing, you should know that PEEK is a hard material, and therefore less feathering capability. On the other hand, silicone is softer, easily featherable, and adjustable. With the undereye skin being so thin, every MM matters, and silicone seems more fit for creating a natural step-off + an easier fallback.
Heres my personal caveat with silicone: peace of mind. I think personally I'd much rather have PEEK, looks cooler, harder, more premium, and the material properties itself are favorable. Not to mention, most of this is somewhat speculative and I'd have to rope if it somehow eroded my midface. The only thing keeping me researching is that I want to get the implant, and be done with no worries of possible complications.
However, realistically silicone seems to be a lot better than PEEK for most upper jaw implants, especially for most wagecels. Thoughts?
