If We Don’t Measure, We Guess: Signal Integrity and Injection Guidance Modalities in Orofacial Intervention

 

A Comprehensive Review of Manual, Electromyographic, Electrical Stimulation, Ultrasound, and Multimodal Approaches Across Therapeutic and Cosmetic Applications

Abstract

Orofacial intervention spans therapeutic and cosmetic domains that share a common neuromuscular substrate: the facial nerve and its innervated musculature. Despite increasing anatomical variability and documented inaccuracy in deep or high-risk targets, manual landmark-based injection remains widely practiced.

Evidence from systematic reviews, randomized cadaveric studies, clinical practice guidelines, and network meta-analyses consistently shows that instrumented guidance modalities—ultrasound (US), electrical stimulation (e-stim), and electromyography (EMG)—improve injection accuracy compared with manual placement. Bayesian network meta-analysis ranks ultrasound highest, followed by electrical stimulation and EMG, with manual placement last [1,2].

This review synthesizes comparative outcome data, modality-specific strengths and limitations, therapeutic and cosmetic applications, safety implications, and integration strategies.

Across domains, a unifying principle emerges: structural visualization identifies the target, and functional signal verification confirms the outcome.

1. Introduction: Precision in a Structurally Dominated Field

Orofacial injection procedures—whether for functional restoration or aesthetic modulation—have traditionally relied on surface landmarks and practitioner experience. However, facial anatomy shows considerable variability, including variation in the vascular course in approximately 38% of individuals [2]. This variability challenges the assumption that static landmarks reliably correspond to underlying structures.

Systematic reviews evaluating botulinum toxin guidance techniques show a clear superiority of instrumented approaches over manual needle placement [1,2]. Although much of the highest-level evidence comes from the limb spasticity literature, the face’s anatomical density and vascular complexity suggest equal or greater relevance in orofacial applications.

2. The Injection Guidance Modality Spectrum

Guidance approaches exist along a continuum of precision:

• Manual landmark-based placement
• Electromyography (EMG)
• Electrical stimulation (e-stim)
• Ultrasound (US)
• Combined modalities (US + EMG; US + e-stim)

A Bayesian network meta-analysis ranked injection precision modalities as follows: ultrasound first, electrical stimulation second, EMG third, and manual placement last [1]. A systematic review found Level 1 evidence supporting instrumented techniques over manual placement for focal spasticity and dystonia [2].

3. Manual Landmark-Based Placement: Strengths and Limitations

Manual techniques rely on anatomical landmarks, palpation, and practitioner experience. However, randomized cadaveric evidence shows substantial inaccuracy. Ultrasound-guided injection achieved 88% accuracy, compared with 50% for landmark techniques (P < 0.001) [4].

Accuracy differences were particularly striking for specific structures: lacrimal gland (62% vs 8%), depressor anguli oris (100% vs 46%), and mentalis (100% vs 54%) [4]. Importantly, 23% of landmark-guided depressor anguli oris injections stained the facial artery [4], underscoring vascular risk.

Manual placement may remain acceptable for large superficial muscles such as frontalis and lateral orbicularis oculi [3]. However, reliability declines significantly for deep, small, or anatomically variable targets.

4. Ultrasound Guidance: Structural Visualization and Vascular Mapping

Ultrasound uniquely visualizes muscle boundaries, needle trajectory, injection depth, and adjacent vascular structures in real time [5–8]. Doppler capability enables identification of vascular risk zones during filler and neuromodulator procedures [8].

A prospective analysis of ultrasound-guided single-point injection for masseter contouring showed a significantly greater reduction in muscle thickness than landmark-guided injection (P < 0.001) [29].

Bruising reduction has also been documented, with ultrasound-guided procedures achieving 70% bruise-free outcomes, compared with 28.8% in standard care (OR 5.77) [9].

Limitations include a learning curve, equipment cost, acoustic shadowing, and the inability to assess muscle activity [3,5]. Next-generation handheld devices aim to improve ergonomics and workflow integration [10].

5. Electromyography: Functional Confirmation and Dose Quantification

EMG provides real-time confirmation of muscle activity and ensures needle placement within an active target [3]. Manual placement accuracy varies by muscle, with particularly low accuracy in the posterior belly of the digastric (19%), risorius (46%), and zygomaticus (47%) [6].

Correlation between botulinum toxin dose and compound motor action potential (CMAP) reduction enables objective quantification of dose-response [19]. Single-fibre EMG detects early changes at the neuromuscular junction after injection [12].

Surface EMG shows a preserved signal-to-noise ratio across age groups in most facial muscles [14]. Limitations include the lack of structural visualization and methodological heterogeneity in sEMG protocols [13].

6. Electrical Stimulation: Confirmation Without Voluntary Activation

Electrical stimulation confirms muscle identity through evoked contraction and is valuable in paralysis, dystonia, and pediatric contexts [3]. Network meta-analysis ranks electrical stimulation second only to ultrasound in precision [1].

Electrical stimulation during toxin uptake may enhance the paralytic effect [15,16]. Limitations include the lack of structural visualization and patient discomfort.

7. Therapeutic Applications

Management of facial nerve palsy includes electrodiagnostic assessment supported by clinical practice guidelines [17,18].

Serial electroneuronography helps predict early recovery [19].

Synkinesis rehabilitation benefits from EMG biofeedback, enabling motor retraining and objective monitoring [20–22].

Surface EMG identifies altered masticatory muscle activity in temporomandibular disorders [23,24]. Botulinum toxin injection reduces EMG amplitude from 189 μV to 55.4 μV in the management of bruxism [25].

EMG-guided injection supports the diagnosis and management of oromandibular dystonia [10,11].

8. Cosmetic Applications: Precision Neuromodulation and Filler Safety

Cosmetic neuromodulation targets the same neuromuscular substrate as therapeutic interventions. Global consensus recommendations emphasize precision dosing and the mitigation of complications [18].

Ultrasound guidance reduces complications, including asymmetry, paradoxical bulging, salivary dysfunction, and bruising [28]. High-density EMG mapping reveals clustered motor endplate zones in lower facial muscles [21], supporting targeted injection strategies.

Conclusion: Structure and Signal

Instrumented guidance techniques consistently outperform manual placement in accuracy and safety. Ultrasound provides structural visualization and vascular mapping; electrical stimulation confirms muscle identity without voluntary activation; EMG uniquely verifies functional activity and dose-response effects. Therapeutic and cosmetic domains converge on shared anatomy and a shared need for measurable precision. Structure identifies the target. Signal confirms success.

References

1. Asimakidou E, Sidiropoulos C. A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of Guidance Techniques in Botulinum Toxin Injections and Their Hierarchy in the Treatment of Limb Spasticity. Toxins. 2023.
2. Grigoriu AI, Dinomais M, Rémy-Néris O, Brochard S. Impact of Injection-Guiding Techniques on the Effectiveness of Botulinum Toxin for Focal Spasticity and Dystonia. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2015.
3. Karp BI, Ly A, Alter KE. Localization Modalities for Botulinum Neurotoxin Injection. Toxicon. 2025.
4. Vejbrink Kildal V, Rodriguez-Lorenzo A, Pruidze P, et al. Ultrasound-Guided Injections for Treatment of Facial Paralysis Sequelae: Randomized Cadaveric Study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2024.
5. Kim SB, Hu H, Lee HJ, Yi KH. Sonoanatomy of Injecting Botulinum Neurotoxin Into the Facial Muscles. Surg Radiol Anat. 2024.
6. Adegboye FO, Upton MK, Sharma RK, et al. Electromyography-Guided Chemodenervation for Nonflaccid Facial Palsy. Facial Plast Surg Aesthet Med. 2025.
7. Wu WT, Chang KV, Chang HC, et al. Ultrasound Imaging of Facial Muscles and Relevance With Botulinum Toxin Injections. Toxins. 2022.
8. Vasconcelos-Berg R, Izidoro JF, Wenz F, et al. Doppler Ultrasound-Guided Filler Injections. Aesthet Surg J. 2023.
9. Naylor D, Velthuis P. Integrating Facial Ultrasound Into Medical Aesthetics Practice. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2025.
10. Ascher B, Wan J, Bohórquez JMC, Yi KH. Fingerheld Ultrasound for Simultaneous Injection and Real-Time Imaging. Aesthet Plast Surg. 2025.
11. France K, Stoopler ET. AAOM Clinical Practice Statement: Oromandibular Dystonia. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2018.
12. Moron H, Gagnard-Landra C, Guiraud D, Dupeyron A. Single-Fiber Evaluation Following Botulinum Toxin-A Injection. Toxins. 2021.
13. Franz L, de Filippis C, Daloiso A, et al. Facial Surface Electromyography: State of the Art. Am J Otolaryngol. 2023.
14. Cotofana S, Assemi-Kabir S, Mardini S, et al. Understanding Facial Muscle Aging: A Surface EMG Study. Aesthet Surg J. 2021.
15. Picelli A, Filippetti M, Sandrini G, et al. Electrical Stimulation to Boost Botulinum Toxin Effect. Toxins. 2021.
16. Honndorf S, Fink K. Electrical or Magnetic Nerve Stimulation Enhance BoNT/A-mediated Muscle Paralysis. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2026.
17. Baugh RF, Basura GJ, Ishii LE, et al. Clinical Practice Guideline: Bell’s Palsy. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013.
18. Sundaram H, Signorini M, Liew S, et al. Global Aesthetics Consensus: Botulinum Toxin Type A. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016.
19. Jo YS, Lee SJ, Lee HJ, Lee JM. Prediction of Early Recovery in Acute Peripheral Facial Paralysis. PLoS One. 2025.
20. Rail B, Henn D, Wen YE, et al. Pathophysiology of Facial Synkinesis. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2025.
21. Lapatki BG, Oostenveld R, Van Dijk JP, et al. Motor Unit Topography of Lower Facial Musculature. J Neurophysiol. 2005.
22. Schneider R, Schramm M, Funk PF, et al. Surface EMG Biofeedback in Facial Synkinesis. Sci Rep. 2025.
23. Szyszka-Sommerfeld L, Sycińska-Dziarnowska M, Spagnuolo G, Woźniak K. sEMG in TMD Assessment. Front Neurol. 2023.
24. Al-Saleh MA, Armijo-Olivo S, Flores-Mir C, Thie NM. Electromyography in Diagnosing TMD. J Am Dent Assoc. 2012.
25. Sitnikova V, Kämppi A, Teronen O, Kemppainen P. Effect of Botulinum Toxin on EMG Activity in Masticatory Disorder. Toxins. 2022.
26. Bohórquez JMC, Schelke L, Velthuis PJ, et al. Ultrasound Guidance in Lower Face Botulinum Toxin Injections. J Craniofac Surg. 2025.
27. Ryoo HJ, Kwon H, Choi JS, et al. Ultrasound-Guided Single-Point Injection for Lower Face Contouring. J Clin Med. 2024.