|artecoll versus nu-fill
Oct 4, 2003
I have finally made a decision that I may actually get some work done (Toronto) for my facial wasting.
After reading many postings here, I am still a little hesitant - primarily because of lack of concensus on the values of artecoll(available in Toronto) versus nu-fill (not available in Toronto but everyone seems VERY pleased with).
My concerns about Artecoll is that if it is, in fact, fairly permanent, that if my facial wasting was to reverse (over say 3 - 5 years) now that I am on a better drug regime, that it could cause serious problems as Artecoll does not seem to be able to be 'removed'.
With nu-fill, I believe it would probably be gone before or while I saw any regeneration in my own face structure.
Any comments on 1 versus the other and how each might cause problems if there is some hope that regeneration might occur over time?
Response from Dr. Moyle
I have no experience of Artecol (see facialwasting.org) but agree that the permanent aspect of some fillers is potentially problematic. Bioalcamid is a non-biodegradable filler that can at least be partially removed and may represent a 'half-way house' between permanent and biodegradables. It is worthwhile taking plenty of advice but ultimately the choices lie in what is available to you.
Whatever you choose, plan on being around to see your facial fat regeneration
hgh and epstein barr
This forum is designed for educational purposes only, and experts are not rendering medical, mental health, legal or other professional advice or services. If you have or suspect you may have a medical, mental health, legal or other problem that requires advice, consult your own caregiver, attorney or other qualified professional.
Experts appearing on this page are independent and are solely responsible for editing and fact-checking their material. Neither TheBody.com nor any advertiser is the publisher or speaker of posted visitors' questions or the experts' material.