Brief communication

Severe granulomatous reaction and facial ulceration occurring after subcutaneous silicone injection☆

In recent years, injections with filler agents are often used for wrinkle-treatment and soft tissue augmentation by dermatologists and plastic surgeons. Unfortunately, the ideal filler has not yet been discovered and all of them may induce adverse reactions. Quickly biodegradable or resorbable agents may induce severe complications, but they will normally disappear spontaneously in a few months. Slowly biodegradable or nonresorbable fillers may give rise to severe reactions that show little or no tendency to spontaneous improvement. They may appear several years after the injection, when the patient does not remember which product was injected, and treatment is often insufficient. In this review, we discuss the most commonly used fillers, their most frequent adverse reactions as well as the characteristic histopathologic findings that allow the identification of the injected filler agent. In conclusion, histopathologic study remains as the gold standard technique to identify the responsible filler.

After completing this learning activity, participants should be able to recognize the most frequent adverse reactions induced by cosmetic fillers, identify their histopathologic characteristics so that they can be distinguished from each other, and advise their patients with adverse reactions about the different nature of these according to the filler for subsequent successful treatment.

Injectable implants used for soft-tissue augmentation may lead to a granulomatous foreign-body reaction. The aim of this report is to present 7 new cases of foreign-body granulomas involving the oral and perioral tissues, after injection of biomaterials to achieve soft-tissue augmentation. In addition, the clinical and epidemiological profile of this condition is summarized, based on a review of the English-language literature of all previously described cases.

We report on 7 new cases of granulomatous foreign-body reaction involving the oral and perioral tissues after the injection of biomaterials. A comprehensive literature review is also presented.

The literature search revealed 49 cases of this condition affecting the oral and perioral tissues. Our 7 patients were female, with a mean age of 52.8 years (range, 34 to 70 years). The lower lip was affected in 4 cases, 1 case was located in the upper lip, 1 case in the buccal mucosa, while 1 case involved 2 different sites (upper lip and buccal mucosa). Histopathologic examination revealed numerous cells with clear, often multiple, cytoplasmic vacuoles, bearing a resemblance to lipoblasts. Immunohistochemistry revealed diffuse positivity for the histiocytic marker CD68.

The diagnosis of granulomatous foreign-body reactions may be challenging because of their microscopic resemblance to liposarcoma, and because of the occasional reluctance of patients to report the previously performed esthetic procedure. A clinical history, histopathologic examination, and immunohistochemical analysis (as needed) are essential in achieving an accurate diagnosis.

We present the first case of foreign body granuloma in the cervical (submandibular) region as a result of migration of noninjected aluminium silicate particles from the oral mucosa. This migration can be explained by macrophage phagocytosis and transport through the local lymphatic network and surgical disruption of fascial layers. The appearance of foreign body granulomas in distant sites may appear several weeks after the local event in a specific disposition according with the migration route. This entity must be born in mind in differential diagnosis of multiple nodules, pigmentation, or persistent swelling in the cervical-orofacial region.