e m “ r osmetic rejuvenation of the lips, facial folds, and rinkles are frequently sought after procedures. A ise in the popularity of cosmetic surgery has made inimally invasive procedures extremely popular. ver the years, many types of fillers have been used o augment the face. These include silicone, fat, exanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE), cadaver deris, bovine collagen, hyaluronic acid, hydroxyapatite nd methylmethacrylate microspheres, and many ther products or preparations. Each type of filler as relative advantages and disadvantages and historcally fall in and out of favor for soft tissue facial ugmentation. Expanded polytetrafluoroethylene was synthesized y the W.L. Gore Company and has been used safely nd effectively in the human body for over 30 years or various applications in vascular and cosmetic surery. Many articles have described the use of ePTFE or cosmetic facial surgical applications. This auhor has been placing soft tissue ePTFE facial implants or 10 years. These implants have been very sucessful in subperiosteal placement or in subdermal lacement in the upper face. One problem this author as encountered with previous ePTFE implantation in he lips is that the implants became hardened, disorted and less pliable, especially in more superficial pplications (Fig 1). Although none of these patients experienced infecion or untoward histologic effects, the implants beame more palpable and frequently visible in areas of ncreased tissue movement. Patients reported that the mplants felt stiff or that they could see the implants n animation. Due to this, some of these implants ere removed. Explantation is uneventful as extreme issue in growth is rare with the biologically compatble ePTFE. Due to these perceived problems, the