Resumo

Objectives: The primary objective of this study is to investigate the depth of arteries in five standardized injection points of the BAP technique, using ultrasound. The goal is to assess the variability in arterial depth to aid in optimizing safe injection practices in aesthetic procedures. Introduction: In aesthetic procedures, precise knowledge of arterial depth is essential for minimizing risks of vascular complications. This study evaluates arterial depths at key points of the Bio Aesthetic Points (BAP) technique using ultrasound. We examined 450 cases to better understand the variations in arterial depth across different injection points, aiming to enhance safety and efficacy in aesthetic treatments. Materials / method: This prospective study included 450 cases where arterial depths were measured using ultrasound. The arterial depths were assessed at five specific BAP points: zygomatic arch (Point 1), nasojugal fold (Point 2), pre-auricular area (Point 3), chin (Point 4), and mandibular angle (Point 5). The results were categorized based on the arterial depths observed at each point, specifically between 2-3 mm, 3-4 mm, over 4 mm, and instances where arteries were not visualized. Results: Point 1: Arteries were 2-3 mm deep in 8%, 3-4 mm in 14%, not visible in 14%, and deeper than 4 mm in the rest. Point 2: Arteries were 2-3 mm deep in 14%, 3-4 mm in 16%, not visible in 17.5%, and deeper than 4 mm in the rest. Point 3: Arteries were 2-3 mm deep in 11%, 3-4 mm in 14%, not visible in 7%, and deeper than 4 mm in the rest. Point 4: Arteries were 2-3 mm deep in 26%, 3-4 mm in 28%, not visible in 12.5%, and deeper than 4 mm in the rest. Point 5: Arteries were not visible in 92%, and deeper than 4 mm in the rest. Conclusion: This study highlights significant variability in arterial depth across the BAP points, with most arteries deeper than 4 mm, particularly at the mandibular angle (Point 5). Ultrasound proves vital for identifying areas with superficial arteries, ensuring safer injections. The chin (Point 4) poses the highest risk due to greater variability in depth, necessitating extra caution. Points 1 and 2 also require moderate caution, while Point 5 poses the least risk, making it the safest for injections.