My understanding is that
Bellafill is FLAT OUT permanent... as is all medical grade
PMMA. Why wouldn't it be given its properties?
The biggest difference between Linnea Safe &
Bellafill are its carriers. Linnea Safe uses cellulose-based carriers which absorb much more quickly (less than a week), whereas
Bellafill uses a bovine carrier which takes much longer to dissipate (more than a week, possibly weeks). I suppose there also may be some small variation between microspheres, but I can't imagine a lot. From a published article online discussing Linnea Safe it states:
"Several factors affect the type and intensity of the inflammatory reaction of the body tissues to the PMMA implantation for the purpose of aesthetic filling; among these, is the size of the polymer microspheres, which should be between 36-43 µm, since this seems to be the ideal size for large dermal injections, preventing phagocytosis and allowing the delivery and stabilization of this material." Suneva's website claims their particles are 30-50µm, so they should in fact behave much the same way as Linnea Safe as far as collagen production is concerned.
Also look at
Ellanse. They were telling patients 2-4 years with certain versions, and are seeing the collagen last considerably longer (5+), despite the particles being "designed to dissipate over time." This may
have to do with the TYPE of collagen created.
As far as costs:
Bellafill has a patent (and therefore no competition in the permanent filler market in the US) and has always been regarded as the priciest filler - the advantage of it is for those who choose not to travel abroad when seeking non-surgical permanent options. Also, traveling abroad is almost always going to provide you lesser expensive options, that's why medical tourism is a huge industry. Heck, if I plan to get any work done on my teeth, I'll go to Mexico.
When you said "
This is from Dr. Rupeka: The PMMA will convert into collagen over a several month to several year period and last 5-10 years." I honestly believe that's a layman description probably typed up from their Web Designer using notes from the Doctor. I often see these errors on other sites that also perform fillers. That's why men come to this site, to learn more of the specifics. However, I will point that out to him, because technically it's incorrect.
I think the 5 year claim may be disingenuous on the part of Suneva, as they know most American cosmetic clinics prefer temporary options to that of permanent, for a variety of reasons. Claiming "permanence" may ultimately scare off potential buyers/practitioners. There was a "respected"
Dermatologist years ago named Dr. Klein who crusaded against permanent fillers, including
PMMA, and I'm certain Suneva is well aware of this sentiment that permeates some attitudes in cosmetic medicine. Otherwise I just can't see how
Bellafill PMMA (with claims that its microspheres are even more uniform and correctly sized than International brands) somehow ends up "temporary" at all.
I believe Dr.
Rupeka is simply citing what the manufacturer states to be quite frank, with a generous 10-year upward bound. He's Suneva's #1 Injector of
Bellafill and so I would imagine he's made privy to all their studies and trials. I will be chatting with him this week to get some clarification for the board - but as far as I know, and with all the empirical evidence over the years,
PMMA is most certainly permanent, or at the least, very very long-term (I've had it for 12 years with no apparent loss in size).
So if it was in-fact temporary, maybe it's lifespan is 15+ years and we just don't know it yet. However, I doubt this because I would have at least seen SOME loss in size over those 12 years, whereas nothing has changed. If 12 years doesn't shave even 0.1" of
Girth off, and it was still somehow temporary, that would make its lifespan effectively permanent.
Like I said in a previous paragraph, I will be getting in touch with them again this week and will flesh out those details, and he will likely be submitting a Q&A like some of our other Sponsors do.