TOPIC: Bellafill vs other PMMA

It seems as though many plastic surgeons in America, including some of the sponsors here have adopted the use of Bellafill as a permanent / semipermanent filler for Girth enhancement.

In the past, particularly when discussed on PB 2.0, Bellafill was typically dismissed as an inferior filler to metracill, etc.

My understanding is the carrier gel takes longer to dissipate and therefor leaves an opportunity for irregularities.

I’ve noticed that most of the use of Bellafill in the US is in conjunction with HA. I’m curious if this then solves the problem of a carrier gel that takes longer to dissolve , but I’m also curious how this could interfere with collagen production from the PMMA. I would think it would cause lumps.

I believe we’ve only had a few patients who have recently had Bellafill, but I would love to hear from some of our sponsors as to the efficacy of this technique and the potential drawbacks.

4 days post. Ill let you know

It’s FDA approved, that’s why they’re using it. If they could use Linnea Safe they would. Dr. Casavantes has the most experience with injecting PMMA into the penis and he uses Linnea Safe because it’s the best PMMA product for it. It’s always interesting hearing from guys who are trying so hard not to travel to Mexico. I would never put something in my penis the best penis doctor in the world doesn’t like using.

Well I already so hopefully it goes ok.
My doctor did part Bellafill with mostly HA.

5 days post

Nice results! Looks nice and smooth.

The significant difference is the carrier: bovine vs cellulose. The American iteration (Bellafill) retains its patent by distinguishing itself from other iterations through its use of a bovine carrier, which also requires an allergen test before administration. Linnea Safe (and Metacrill) are cellulose-based.

The effective difference is the duration by which the carrier dissipates/absorbs, like @Dickwhitman79 mentioned: bovine takes considerably longer to break down and thus leaves a wider window of recovery (and by extension, a longer period in which aesthetic irregularity can occur); the cellulose carrier is resolved in a matter of days. Also, Bellafill is considerably more expensive than its non-patented counterparts, although that's less of an issue if budget isn't your dilemma.

This all said - if you're having it injected by a highly skilled practitioner and are willing to follow a prolonged protocol, Bellafill is certainly a viable filler. As a matter of fact, I know of a few physicians who've experimented with mixing the Bellafill PMMA with fat and other ingredients to bring down the overall cost while providing their patients the benefit of some permanence.