Extraordinary Case ReportsFacial Granulomas Secondary to Dermalive Microimplants Report of a Case with Histopathologic Differential Diagnosis Among the Granulomas Secondary to Different Injectable Permanent Filler MaterialsVargas-Machuca, Inmaculada MD; González-Guerra, Elena MD; Angulo, Jorge MD; del Carmen Fariña, María MD; Martín, Lucia MD; Requena, Luis MDAuthor Information Department of Dermatology, Fundación Jiménez Díaz, Universidad Autónoma, Madrid, Spain Reprints: Luis Requena, Department of Dermatology, Fundación Jiménez Díaz, Avda. Reyes Católicos 2 28040-Madrid, Spain (e-mail: [email protected]). The American Journal of Dermatopathology: April 2006 - Volume 28 - Issue 2 - p 173-177 doi: 10.1097/01.dad.0000181108.46909.8e Buy Metrics Abstract Wrinkle reduction and the correction of skin defects using injectable aesthetic microimplants are now widely performed by dermatologists and plastic surgeons. In recent years, dermal filler substances containing polymer particle suspensions such as Bioplastique, Artecoll, and Dermalive are the most commonly used materials. These microimplants are permanent, non-biodegradable, and generally well tolerated, although various adverse reactions are still possible. We describe here a patient with facial granulomas secondary to Dermalive injections for correction of naso-labial folds and wrinkles. The particular shape of the injected particles allows for correct identification of the implanted material. Therefore, histopathologic examination is the best means to obtain the correct diagnosis of foreign body granuloma and to identify the type of filler particles. We discuss the histopathologic differential diagnosis among the granulomas secondary to the most commonly used aesthetic permanent filler materials. © 2006 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.