Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
In a search for the ideal material for soft tissue augmentation, many substances have been proposed, including fat, dermis, fascia, allograft, and xenograft. Although these materials have some efficacy, they all have significant disadvantages. The ideal substance for soft tissue augmentation would be biocompatible, nonim-munogenic, easily obtainable, low-cost, nonresorbable, and easy to store. Such a material does not exist at this time, but two recent soft tissue augmentation materials are autologous, injectable, dermal collagen (Autologen®), developed by the Collagenesis Corporation (Beverley, MA) and acellular dermal homograft (AlloDerm®), developed by the LifeCell Corporation (The Woodlands, TX). A comparison of these two products reveals the potential of each in facial soft-tissue augmentation (Table). View this table: Table Comparison of Autologous, Injectable, Dermal Collagen and Acellular, Dermal Homograft for Soft Tissue Augmentation ### Procurement Autologous, injectable, dermal collagen (AIDC) is processed from the patient's own skin. The skin is usually obtained from tissue that would otherwise be discarded during routine aesthetic procedures, such as face lift, abdominoplasty, or breast reduction. Alternatively, skin can be harvested expressly for the purpose of manufacturing AIDC (Anastos DL, written communication, September 20, 1997).1–3 The Collagenesis Corporation, which manufactures Autologen®, will bank tissue at no charge for up to 6 months to allow the patient time to consider the treatment. Additional storage can be arranged for a fee if desired (Anastos DL, written communication, September 20, 1997). According …
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
A 1997 study studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: