Jump to content
Acne.org
Search In
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
ylem

Silicone Microdroplet is the Best By Far

Recommended Posts

Ok, so I know I have been shooting this whole silicone thing down because I have not had decent improvement. Until just the last few days, I was not noticing anything substantial. Recently, the large, half inch sized crater has drmamtically started to level. When I feel the depression, it feels much shallower!! Cosmetically, I am still not happy, but there is a leveling effect occuring, though it does not look much better because the "imprint" of the depression is still there. Anybody who has done this know what I mean?? Will that SHADOW or IMPRINT eventually disappear? No photos now b/c it isn't something I can capture on camera.

Just to let everyone know, I have had dermabrasions, laser, excisions, to no avail until this. This is by far the MOST effective treatment. In fact, I read somewhere it was dubbed the accutane for acne scarring. This is ture because the effects take months and months to notice, but with undying persistance, the efficacy is almost guaranteed!

I will post with photos by the end of session 6! I am going into session 4 next week!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest delta force operators

sorry i dont know much about ur question, i think u have a rolling scar now that may soon fade, im curoius to how ur excisions went, and what type of scars did u have excised?

I have one fairly large ice pick scar that looks like a pockmark on my right cheek, i was wondering if an excission can help or if i should look into a fat graft from the ear?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think his damage is very deep, and all else failed, so he figured it was worth a shot to see if it worked. in spite of any risk, I think since they inject micro amounts, the risk is virtually nothing, its was when people in the 70's, 80's foolishly went crazy with it, and pump a whole bunch in with reckless technique that the risk sky-rocket up. The method has been refined/tweeked I believe. Good dr+good technique=lower risk than any knife. However, many people may be wise to prepare their damages with knife, to make conditions favorable for filler response. **STRETCH TEST** so when somebody tells you your not good for filler, then simply do what it takes so that it is an optimal environment to accept filler. If you live outside usa, you have better options like the semi-perm fillers(aquamid). Extremely low risk, and lasts a reasonable amount of time, there may be few others, but if your goal is to make the area in question completely flat, then I do not see how you can avoid some sort of injectable. Its the only thing that might deliever a superficial status, which is what everybody wants right. If there were something better I would do it,but there is not, nothing exists on this world, so in usa, only silicone, and even thats hard to find, other countries get better stuff +more options. USA is silicone or suffer. This "imprint" you speak of is simply low-grade scarred skin. It will never be of the same quality as the surrounding undamaged area and will probably never go away, all you can do is cut it(excise) again and see if it regenerates back in a more favorable fashion, but this might be disasterous if it results in deeper area and removed any enhancement you silicone provided. the texture is different of this scarred skin is poor, and less desirable than surrounding area as you know. Minimize it by filling it, the flatter, the less visible it becomes.you have seen some pictures of what they look like flat, you might expect similiar effect with enough injections. When your skin heals from the wound, the result is lower quality "replacement skin" that looks different. The best you can probably do is fill it up as much with the silicone until your satisfied, then eliminate any residual redness with some IPL or something. Even if you get it flat, that will still be visible on some level, get seasoned and well versed with some make-up, alot of the girls around here are probably masters at it so ask them or something, and if its flat and right skin color makeup, and if your damage is an inch or less or so, finding right makeup can easily blend quite well with surrounding area, but this is really only so when and if you get it flat. None of this matters really until your approaching flatness, when you feel the time is nearing, start messing with stuff thats a dead-on color match, just wasting time if color is not perfect though so buy a few and pick the best of the bunch.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"On a head to head comparison I dont see that silicone has any advantages over other permanent fillers for patients but has many disadvantages. Perhaps the low cost of silicone is financially advantageous for physicians."

---its advantage is that it has no equal in longevity, nothing even comes close, silicone is for life, there is no other permanent material on earth for this purpose, it is the only one, no need for constant re-injects, once its finished, its over and flat until you die. Disadvanatges are is not instant result like the longer-lasting temp fillers, and result is not dramatic, but rather slow, natural correction. If you want something that looks great immeditay and lasts a while get aquamid for the rest of your life, if you want delayed, slow result, but lasts a lifetime them get silicone, if your in usa, you don't have this choice, next one down from silicone is restylane, which lasts a hidiously short amount of time. I would rather wait a while and get lifetime result, than be temp filler slave forever!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had one round of silicone so far and it does have advantages over invasive procedures like lasers because there is hardly any downtime and less risk of additional scarring in being too abrasive. However, I haven't seen alot of results with one and wonder if it will take forever and too much money for me to see a noticeable result. I am waiting till my bank account recovers from christmas to go back for the second but I probably will within a month. Also mesilonca, I don't see why if one doesn't respond with collagen from needling or laser that is a sign that one will not respond with collagen thru the silicone. It is a different process, it is not inducing damage and re-healing like the others. Many here have experienced good results from silicone so I wouldn't write it off.

Ylem, you will get there and a little makeup like suggested may smooth out the scars alot!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I found a website a while back that said Bio Alcamid is the US FDA approved version of Bio Aquamid, which siad it was permanent, but that it could be excised if needed. The site claimed a superior mfg process, etc. Anyway, Melisconca or anyone else, I have a couple depressed surgical scars, one of which responded really well to Restylane (but was too expensive to repeat) and is on my smile dimple. One doc said that it might be a risky place for a permanent filler due to lots of smiling (ie dynamic movement). It actually looks great when smiling, but looks horrible when not, as the depression becomes evident. Any thoughts on this from your experience with fillers? Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites
I doubt silicone and best can be used in the same sentence. Silicone is not hydrophilic like polyacrylamide permanent fillers therefore it is subject to the formation of a potentially bacteria harbouring biofilm resulting in chronic inflammed nodules often resistant to antibiotics since the bacteria has matured in isolation within the biofilm. The incidence may be statistically low but nonetheless real if your one of the unfortunate statistics. Silicone is also not a filler in the true sense in that the volume injected doesnt correlate to the volume of the defect treated like other fillers. Silicone is a bio catalyst relying on your bodies ability to produce fibrosis and collagen around the implanted droplets to elevate the defect and given the biochemical variations inherent in all of us some people wont get good results. If a person has failed to generate sufficient collagen in response to the heat , chemical or mechanical injury of lasers, chemical peels and needling then the same would logically apply to the foreign body reaction of silicone injection. If ones biochemistry is good enough to result in collagen synthesis from heat, chemical or mechanical injury then the need to inject a foreign body into ones face becomes debatable. Silicone is not removable as far as I know whilst other permanent fillers are reported to be at least partially removable and a number of posts on various boards have confirmed this, personally I doubt this is applicable in every situation and wouldnt put too much credence in that. Silicone also precludes having "hot" laser resurfacing at a later date due to the phenomen of silicon flash. On a head to head comparison I dont see that silicone has any advantages over other permanent fillers for patients but has many disadvantages. Perhaps the low cost of silicone is financially advantageous for physicians.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Your a fookwit dude, your post is littered with factually incorrect statements, Aquamid is a permanent filler not a semi permanent filler Ive had it myself and is available from a number of physicians in the USA as well as Bio Alcamid, other boards such as the spectacular skin or the old yes their fake board archives contain numerous posts from users who have had these treatments in the USA not only for scarring but for facial contouring.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn’t do anything heat oriented w/any ablative type of laser with a face full of any type of filler including aquamid, but most definitely not silicone. Cold abrasion is another story.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, first of all nodules can happen with any filler, also Melisconca the article you bolded is talking about "implants" and uses the term "silicone gel". The silicone microdroplet treatment used silicone OIL, not gel. The gel is used in Breast Implants. The gel has been deemed safe for breast implants too now. The silicone oil is not usually termed implant.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The article by Christensen is specifically about dermal fillers not breast implants its one of the most often reprinted articles on numerous websites. Your right every skin piercing procedure carries risk of infection Im just presenting a more rounded view of things as opposed "it worked for me therefore its gonna work for you" point of view.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I think I found the article I pasted it in full with a statement below it:

BUSINESS BRIEFING: CLINICAL VIROLOGY & INFECTIOUS DISEASE 2004 1 Reference Section Dr Lise Christensen is Senior Pathologist in the Department of Pathology at Rigshospitalet, University Hospital of Copenhagen, Denmark. She also works part-time for The Danish Cancer Societyýs Department of Epidemiology. Dr Christensenýs prime interest is in diseases of the breast and thyroid, ý particularly breast cancer diagnosis and treatment ý and she has led studies on breast prostheses, in particular silicone breast prostheses, since 1984. She has also been involved in studies in Denmark and abroad on polyacrylamide hydrogel and other permanent synthetic fillers. Dr Christensen is a participant in more than 30 international congresses, with oral presentation in 19 and poster presentation in 11, and she is author or co-author of 91 publications, all published in internationally acknowledged journals or books. a report by Drs Lise Christensen and Veronica Tariki Senior Pathologist, Department of Pathology, Rigshospitalet, University Hospital of Copenhagen and Dermatologist, Centro integrado de Dermatologia e Medicina Estetica, Sýo Paulo, Brazil Highly active anti-retroviral therapy (HAART) with retrotranscriptase or protease inhibitors is used successfully to treat HIV-1-infected patients.

Unfortunately, this treatment may result in a fat redistribution syndrome, including peripheral wasting, central adiposity and facial fat atrophy, in as many as 64% of patients after one year of treatment.1 Facial lipoatrophy is characterised by a loss of subcutaneous fat, especially in the cheeks, the temples and periorbitally, and it may cause severe psychological disturbances such as depression, anxiety, social isolation, reduced confidence and self-worth and lack of self-interest.2,3 This fat wasting has been treated with face-lifts, autologous fat grafting4 or solid implants like silicone rubber,5 but the least invasive and most successful treatment is the injection of facial fillers.

The longest- and best-known filler is autologous fat retrieved from liposuction,6 but other fillers have also been used: transient fillers (collagen, hyaluronic acid),7 a slowly degradable filler (polylactic acid, New- Fillý)3,8 and permanent fillers (Artecolý),9 silicone10 and polyacrylamide hydrogel (Aquamidý).11,12 Autologous, re-injected fat was the first filler used.

With this method, the fat cells attach to their surroundings (the subcutis) and eventually start to grow,6 although some fat necrosis must be expected in the process. The disadvantage is the fact that the process of harvesting and preparing the fat cell suspension for injection is expensive, time-consuming and highly specialised. Moreover, the filling effect is difficult to monitor: the fat tissue tends to show some degree of subsequent shrinkage13 and, when the re- injected fat cells start to grow, there is no guarantee that they stop at the right time. The harvested fat tissue typically stems from abdominal or upper back fat (buffalo hump) and, in some cases, patients have developed the so-called ýhamster syndromeý (i.e. fatty cheek hypertrophia).11 Biodegradable transient fillers such as collagen or hyaluronic acid are easy to manage, but re-injection will have to be performed every three to six months in order to obtain a permanent facial filling effect ý increasing the risk of infection.14 Synthetic slowly or non-biodegradable fillers include silicone gel, polyacrylamide hydrogel, Aquamid and the combination gels (polymethyl-methacrylate with collagen, Artecol and polylactic acid with mannitol and carbomethoxycellulose, New-Fill). Whereas silicone gel and polyacrylamide hydrogel are homogenous polymer gels of hydrophobic and hydrophilic type, respectively, the combination gels consist of a solid component (microspheres or fragments) and a biodegradable carrier. The solid component may be non-degradable (Artecol) or slowly degradable (New-Fill), but they are injected in the form of many small fragments mixed with a transient liquid and the purpose is to obtain fibrosis preceded by the inevitable foreign-body reaction.

This reaction is more modest following injection with silicone gel and almost non-existent following injection with polyacrylamide hydrogel, where the gels stay in the tissue as rounded deposits surrounded by a modest or no foreign-body reaction. Being lipophilic, however, silicone gel has a high tendency to enter the reticuloendothelial system via circulating phagocytic cells,15,16 in contrast to polyacrylamide hydrogel, which, being lipophobic, stays and instead interacts with the surrounding tissue because of its structure and high water content.

Naturally, complete antiseptic precautions and sterile conditions are mandatory in all invasive procedures performed on these immuno-deficient patients.

However, the fillers remain in the tissue as foreign bodies for an extended period or forever (depending on the filler used), and some of them are followed by inflammatory nodules or granulomas several years after the injection.17 This may be because, in those rare cases where bacteria are introduced, they are capable of staying within or around the implant (i.e.

silicone gel) for extended periods due to the biofilm consisting of bacteria and fibrin that is probably formed around this18,19 as well as all other inert implants.20 This biofilm prevents bacterial degradation by host factors, favouring a low-grade infection, and explains why inflammatory granulomas sometimes develop many years after the injection.17 A similar mechanism seems to occur for the combination gels consisting of solid microspheres or fragments, as late granulomas have also been described after these fillers.9,21 An uncontrollable foreign-body reaction and fibrosis is also a risk in these lesions, however, and explains why Treatment of Facial Lipoatrophy in HIV-1-infected Patients on HAART BUSINESS BRIEFING: CLINICAL VIROLOGY & INFECTIOUS DISEASE 2004 2 Reference Section intralesional steroid injections have had a favourable effect in some cases.9,21 Polyacrylamide hydrogel (Aquamid), on the other hand, is hydrophilic and its 97.5% water molecules are exchanged with host tissue water molecules within weeks (unpublished observations). This exchange causes a constant fluctuation, which prevents biofilm deposition and facilitates bacterial degradation by host factors and/or antibiotics. Inflammatory granulomas have not been seen later than one year after Aquamid injection (unpublished observations), which confirms this theory. A number of clinical studies of Aquamid injection in facial lipoatrophy have been or are being conducted worldwide with promising follow-up results.11,12 Inflammatory granulomas following injection of this material are treated easily with a quinolone antibiotic. This synthetic and yet water- rich, highly biocompatible gel is therefore a promising future permanent filler in the treatment of HIV patients with facial lipoatrophy. a73 Figures 1 and 2: A Male and a Female Patient Before (Left) and After (Right) Injection with Aquamid Treatment of Facial Lipoatrophy in HIV-1-infected Patients on HAART References 1. Carr A, ýHIV protease inhibitor-related lipodystrophy syndromeý, Clin. Infect. Dis., 30 (2000) (suppl. 2), S135ýS142.

2. Silversides A, ýProtease inhibitors raising quality-of-life issues for HIV patientsý, Can. Med. Assoc. J., 160 (1999), p. 1,048.

3. Moyle G, Lysakovo L, Brown S, Sibtain N, Healy J, Priest C, Mandalia S and Barton S E, ýA randomised, open-label study of immediate vs. delayed polylactic acid injections for the cosmetic management of facial lipoatrophy in persons with HIV injectioný, HIV Medicine, 5 (2004), pp. 82ý87.

4. Wechselberger G, Sarcletti M, Meirer R, Bauer T and Schoeller T, ýDermis-fat graft for facial lipodystrophy in HIV- positive patients: is it worthwhile?ý, Ann. Plast. Surg., 47 (2001), pp. 1ý2.

5. Talmor M, Hoffman L A and LaTrenta G S, ýFacial atrophy in HIV-related fat redistribution syndrome: anatomic evaluation and surgical reconstructioný, Ann. Plast. Surg., 49 (2002), pp. 11ý18.

6. Coleman S R, ýFacial recontouring with lipostructureý, Clin. Plast. Surg., 24 (1997), pp. 347ý367.

7. Ritt M J, ýLocal treatment of facial lipodystrophy in patients receiving HIV protease inhibitor therapyý, Acta Chir. Plast., 43 (2001), pp. 54ý56.

8. Valantin M A, Aubron-Olivier C, Ghosn J, Laglenne E, Pauchard M, Schoen H, Bousquet R, Katz P, Costagliola D and Katlama C, ýPolylactic acid implants (New-Fill) to correct facial lipoatrophy in HIV-infected patients: results of the open-label study VEGAý, AIDS, 21 (2003), pp. 2,471ý2,477.

9. Lemperle G, Romano J J and Busso M, ýSoft tissue augmentation with Artecoll: 10-year history, indications, technique and complicationsý, Dermatol. Surg., 29 (2003), pp. 573ý587.

10. Orentreich D and Leone A-S, ýA case of HIV-associated facial lipoatrophy treated with 1000-cs liquid siliconeý, Dermatol. Surg., 30 (2004), pp. 548ý551.

11. Guaraldi G, De Fazio D, Orlando G, Murri R, Grisotti A, Nardini G, Callegari M, De Lorenzi I, Prinzivalli G, Pecorari M, Beghetto B and Covezzi R, ýSurgical and cosmetic treatments for fat abnormalities. Autologous fat transfer for treating facial wasting in HIV body fat redistribution syndromeý, 10. conference on retroviruses and opportunistic infections, Boston, 10ý14 February 2004, poster.

12. Tariki V M R, Uip D and Falzone R, ýPolyacrylamide Hydrogel for restoration of face volume in patients with lipodystrophyý, manuscript in preparation for publication.

13. Ducic Y, Pontius A T and Smith J E, ýLipotransfer as as adjunct in head and neck reconstructioný, Laryngosope, 113 (2003), pp. 1,600ý1,604.

14. Cooperman L S, Mackinnin V, Bechler G and Pharriss B B, ýInjectable collagen: a six year clinical investigationý, Aesthetic Plast. Surg., 9 (1985), pp. 145ý151.

15. Leong A S, Disney A P and Gove D W, ýRefractile particles in liver of hemodialysis patientsý, Lancet, 1 (1981), pp. 889ý890.

16. Bommer J, Ritz E and Walsherr R, ýSilicone-induced splenomegaly: treatment of pancytopena by splenectomia in a patient on hemodialysisý, N. Engl. J. Med., 305 (1981), pp. 1,077ý1,079.

17. Wilkie T F, ýLate development of granuloma after liquid silicone injectionsý, Plast. Reconstr. Surg., 60 (1977), pp.

179ý188.

18. Tang L and Eaton J W, ýInflammatory responses to biomaterialsý, Am. J. Clin. Pathol., 103 (1995), pp. 466ý471.

19. Kao W J and Lee D, ýIn vivo modulation of host response and macrophage behaviour by polymer networks grafted with the fibronectin-derived biomimetic oligopeptides: the role of RGD and PHSRN domainsý, Biomaterials, 22 (2001), pp. 2,901ý2,909.

20. Schmidt A H and Swiontkowski M F, ýPatophysiology of infections after internal fixation of fracturesý, J. Am. Acad.

Orthop. Surg., 8 (2000), pp. 285ý291.

21. Lombardi T, Samson J, Plantier F, Husson C and Kýffer R, ýOrofacial granulomas after injection of cosmetic fillers.

Histopathologic and clinical study of 11 casesý, J. Oral Pathol. Med., 33 (2004), pp. 115ý120.

BUSINESS BRIEFING: CLINICAL VIROLOGY & INFECTIOUS DISEASE 2004 3

This reference silicone10 which I bolded. I believe this to be different than the silikon 1000 oil I had injected, for a pic: http://www.silikon1000.com/

Let me know if I'm wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really care about the granulomas I have researched them, but Melisconca bolded info from an article that I believe was talking about another silicone different from what ylem and I have had done, case closed

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your a fookwit dude, your post is littered with factually incorrect statements, Aquamid is a permanent filler not a semi permanent filler Ive had it myself and is available from a number of physicians in the USA as well as Bio Alcamid, other boards such as the spectacular skin or the old yes their fake board archives contain numerous posts from users who have had these treatments in the USA not only for scarring but for facial contouring.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The article by Christensen is specifically about dermal fillers not breast implants its one of the most often reprinted articles on numerous websites. Your right every skin piercing procedure carries risk of infection Im just presenting a more rounded perspective as opposed to "it worked for me therefore its gonna work for you" point of view. Christensens articles should be essential reading for anyone contemplating permanent fillers, cant believe anyone having fillers isnt familiar with her work.

Your quote above was the article I cut and paste and corrected you on, didn't mention Duffy did I? Personal attacks are not allowed here, let's all just be nice! :angel:

Link to post
Share on other sites
I doubt silicone and best can be used in the same sentence. Silicone is not hydrophilic like polyacrylamide permanent fillers therefore it is subject to the formation of a potentially bacteria harbouring biofilm resulting in chronic inflammed nodules often resistant to antibiotics since the bacteria has matured in isolation within the biofilm. The incidence may be statistically low but nonetheless real if your one of the unfortunate statistics. Silicone is also not a filler in the true sense in that the volume injected doesnt correlate to the volume of the defect treated like other fillers. Silicone is a bio catalyst relying on your bodies ability to produce fibrosis and collagen around the implanted droplets to elevate the defect and given the biochemical variations inherent in all of us some people wont get good results.

If a person has failed to generate sufficient collagen in response to the heat , chemical or mechanical injury of lasers, chemical peels and needling then the same would logically apply to the foreign body reaction of silicone injection. Silicone is not removable as far as I know whilst other permanent fillers are reported to be at least partially removable and a number of posts on various boards have confirmed this, personally I doubt this is applicable in every situation and wouldnt put too much credence in that. Silicone also precludes having "hot" laser resurfacing at a later date due to the phenomen of silicon flash. On a head to head comparison I dont see that silicone has any advantages over other permanent fillers for patients but has many disadvantages. Perhaps the low cost of silicone is financially advantageous for physicians.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Im very nice to broadminded people who care to look at both sides of an argument I find it difficult to be nice to assinine narrow minded people who resort to defensive quips like "case closed" in order to evade the evidence, a tactic often used by those seeking affirmation for their actions or beliefs. All you had to say was yes I understand a small minority of those recieving silicone injections can get severe and untreatable complications despite best practice but I chose to have it anyway, instead of making the farcical attempt to affirm the legitimacy of your own decision by saying oh I got injected with some magical fairy silicone which wasnt specifically mentioned and isnt subject to the same complications as other silicone.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I'm glad there's some info here for the people who're considering having it done. The benefits outweight the risks as far as I'm concerned. I've been told before to "just wait until a permanent filler is available". Of course there's going to be a risk though, that's why this is 'permanent'. I had one round of injections about a three weeks ago, and I can tell a slight difference. I would like to say that I have two different spots, where he injected, that I can still feel. Don't know if he injected too shallow, or if my body just reacted differently in those two areas. So, if you're considering having this done, do a lot of research. I know many of us tend to overexagerate the severity of our scars, so I wouldn't consider doing something this invasive unless they're actually severe.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently Lionel Richie, his wife, and Larry King's wife all had silicone injections.

http://cbs2.com/topstories/local_story_338185244.html

You have to wonder why considering these people have unlimited access to money although they claim they didnt know that they were being injected with silicone. If they did know it's a bit disheartening because perhaps permanent fillers are the only definite way (although risky) to get rid of deep imperfections as these people have access to basically anything they want and still went that route.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Apparently Lionel Richie, his wife, and Larry King's wife all had silicone injections.

http://cbs2.com/topstories/local_story_338185244.html

You have to wonder why considering these people have unlimited access to money although they claim they didnt know that they were being injected with silicone. If they did know it's a bit disheartening because perhaps permanent fillers are the only definite way (although risky) to get rid of deep imperfections as these people have access to basically anything they want and still went that route.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Melisconca- so far you haven't posted any scientific research on the long-term effects of the use of silicone administered using the micro-droplet technique. You won't be able to find any, only conceptual articules by practitioners who specialize in other procedures and who view silicone micro-droplet technique as a threat to their speciality. Those "studies" will of course be subjectively biased. Thanks for your concerns about my health. Mark

Link to post
Share on other sites

YOU TRYING TO BE FUNNY? CAUSE YOUR DOING A GOOD JOB. DO I LOOK LIKE YOUR MOMMY? IF I WANTED TO BABYSIT ID HAVE MY OWN KIDS SO WHY DONT YOU DOWNLOAD LESS PORN AND DO MORE OF YOUR OWN ONLINE RESEARCH. I TOLD YOU OTHER BOARDS HAVE NUMEROUS RELEVANT POSTS ON THE MATTER YOU NEED TO GET AWAY FROM THIS BOARD AND SPREAD YOUR WINGS A LITTLE SO GO AND SNIFF AROUND AND REPORT ON WHAT YOU FIND. ILL GIVE YOU A HEADSTART BY TELLING YOU DR SOREN WHITE IN NEW YORK PROVIDES THE NON SILICONE PERMANENT FILLER BIO ALCAMID. http://www.sorenmwhitemd.com./ I REMEMBER A DR GROSSMAN ALSO FROM NEWYORK BEING MENTIONED AND ANOTHER DOCTOR IN THE MIDWEST THOUGH I CANT REMEMBER ANY DETAILS. I NEVER SAID THEY WERE FDA APPROVED BTW SILCONE ISNT FDA APPROVED FOR SCAR REVISION AND IS ONLY USED OFF LABEL. I NEVER SAID DOCTORS WERE EASY TO FIND. IF I WERE HAVING A HOMER SIMPSON MOMENT ID SAY ONE WAY TO FIND DOCTORS USING A PARTICULAR PRODUCT IS TO ASK THE MANUFACTURERS AND DISTRIBUTORS BOTH LOCALANDINTERNATIONAL NO GUARANTEE YOU WILL GET AN ANSWER BUT WORTH TRYING

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Personalized Advice Quiz - All of Acne.org in just a few minutes


×