Novel use of polymethyl methacrylate (<scp>PMMA</scp>) microspheres in the treatment of infraorbital rhytids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To demonstrate safely with the use of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) microspheres in the infraorbital eyelid area using a deliberate conservative injection in the treatment of rhytids. METHODS: A retrospective case series of 289 patients in an outpatient cosmetic dermatology clinic evaluated and treated by one senior provider (NM) of infraorbital rhytids with PMMA from December 2010 to March 2011. Statistical analysis was performed for race, skin type, history of hypertrophic scar, autoimmunity, history of "sensitive skin" and history of prior procedures such as prior facelift, rhinoplasty, and blepharoplasty. RESULTS: Two hundred ninety-one patients underwent at least 1-6 injections of PMMA microspheres into bilateral under eye area. Early complications were edema and ecchymosis. Late complications were identified in 4 of 289 patients who developed small granulomas. All patients who developed granulomas had had a previous lower blepharoplasty (P = 0.00). A history of "sensitive skin" was approaching statistical significance (P = 0.15). CONCLUSION: This study has shown that PMMA microsphere injection is a safe subdermal technique in the correction of infraorbital rhytids. Safety was demonstrated in 289 patients with only 4 minor complications of small lateral granuloma which all resolved within 4 weeks after intralesion triamcinolone injection. However, this is an off-label use of a permanent filler not approved for use in the infraorbits and significant caution must be taken with full disclosure to the patient leading to informed consent. Caution in PMMA microsphere injection should be given in the patient with prior blepharoplasty. The advantage of PMMA microsphere is that the result seems to be predictable and natural.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".