This review evaluates the current state of facial implant materials used in craniofacial surgery, focusing on their properties, advantages, disadvantages, and clinical applications. The article discusses various materials, including autologous (bone, cartilage, fat), allogeneic (lyophilized cartilage), and alloplastic (silicone, polyethylene, PEEK, titanium, hydroxyapatite) options. Autologous materials, while effective, have limitations such as unpredictability and resorption. Alloplastic materials offer alternatives with varying degrees of biocompatibility, mechanical strength, and integration with host tissue. Silicone implants are widely used but can lead to complications such as migration, bony resorption, and visibility issues. Polyethylene implants, particularly porous polyethylene (MedPor), are less likely to be encapsulated and have lower infection rates. PEEK implants are noted for their mechanical strength, compatibility with imaging modalities, and ability to integrate with bone. Titanium is highly biocompatible and used for fracture fixation but can be visible through thin skin. Hydroxyapatite (HaP) is osteoconductive and inductive, with HaP granules demonstrating stable volume retention in facial augmentation. Combining HaP with other materials like PLA can enhance mechanical stability, and 3D bioprinting with HaP-based bioinks offers promising customizable implants. The review emphasizes that no single material has definitively demonstrated superiority in all aspects. Larger randomized controlled trials are needed to comprehensively evaluate short- and long-term complications, which could potentially revolutionize facial balancing surgery. The article concludes that while various materials are available, their selection depends on the specific clinical needs, and future research is essential to optimize outcomes.This review evaluates the current state of facial implant materials used in craniofacial surgery, focusing on their properties, advantages, disadvantages, and clinical applications. The article discusses various materials, including autologous (bone, cartilage, fat), allogeneic (lyophilized cartilage), and alloplastic (silicone, polyethylene, PEEK, titanium, hydroxyapatite) options. Autologous materials, while effective, have limitations such as unpredictability and resorption. Alloplastic materials offer alternatives with varying degrees of biocompatibility, mechanical strength, and integration with host tissue. Silicone implants are widely used but can lead to complications such as migration, bony resorption, and visibility issues. Polyethylene implants, particularly porous polyethylene (MedPor), are less likely to be encapsulated and have lower infection rates. PEEK implants are noted for their mechanical strength, compatibility with imaging modalities, and ability to integrate with bone. Titanium is highly biocompatible and used for fracture fixation but can be visible through thin skin. Hydroxyapatite (HaP) is osteoconductive and inductive, with HaP granules demonstrating stable volume retention in facial augmentation. Combining HaP with other materials like PLA can enhance mechanical stability, and 3D bioprinting with HaP-based bioinks offers promising customizable implants. The review emphasizes that no single material has definitively demonstrated superiority in all aspects. Larger randomized controlled trials are needed to comprehensively evaluate short- and long-term complications, which could potentially revolutionize facial balancing surgery. The article concludes that while various materials are available, their selection depends on the specific clinical needs, and future research is essential to optimize outcomes.