Density opinions

[instinct1]

A question for those that have had a hair transplant.

 

What density of grafts per square inch did you receive, and how do you feel about the coverage that it provided? Do you wish you'd gone with more or less density afterwards?

 

Is there much of a cosmetic different between, as an example, 50 grafts/2cm as opposed to 80 grafts/2cm?

 

Cheers,

Instinct

[instinct1]

A question for those that have had a hair transplant.

 

What density of grafts per square inch did you receive, and how do you feel about the coverage that it provided? Do you wish you'd gone with more or less density afterwards?

 

Is there much of a cosmetic different between, as an example, 50 grafts/2cm as opposed to 80 grafts/2cm?

 

Cheers,

Instinct

[Bill - Seemiller]

instinct1,

 

Ultimately, the more hairs (I'm talking strictly hairs not grafts here) per square cm you receive, the more hair density you will have creating a thicker and fuller look.

 

How much density you need will depend on your hair characteristics.

 

How much density you can realistically achieve depends on your selected surgeon and your available donor hair supply.

 

As for me, I'd be a full norwood 6 at this point if it wasn't for my hair transplants. 7550 grafts later, and I am very happy with my head of hair. I would guess to say my hair density ranges from 45 follicular units per square cm in the front to 25 follicular units per square cm in the back and anywhere in between depending on the location of the scalp. I do still have some available donor hair supply and will most likely be going back early 2009 to add density in the front and hit the crown some more if I have the available donor.

 

The difference between 50 and 80 grafts per square cm (assuming the number of hairs per graft are the same on average) will be more noticeable in harsh lighting. In my lights, my hair looks thick and natural from the front however, in harsh lighting, it appears a bit thin even when looking at the hairline. I suspect after I add some density that this will help portray a greater illusion of hair density.

 

Best wishes,

 

Bill

[Eman]

instinct,

 

it is said that one starts noticing thinning when you are at 50% of original density. Everyone's characteristics are different in terms of the density had prior to beginning the loss of hair. IMO, 50 grafts/cm2 is really good density or the illusion of density. Planting much more than that per square cm is using up availability that may need to be used in the future.

[TheEmperor]

Originally posted by Eman:

instinct,

 

it is said that one starts noticing thinning when you are at 50% of original density. Everyone's characteristics are different in terms of the density had prior to beginning the loss of hair. IMO, 50 grafts/cm2 is really good density or the illusion of density. Planting much more than that per square cm is using up availability that may need to be used in the future.

 

This is said, but I disagree.

 

50% density apears like 50% density. You may be able to stlye it so it looks like you are not going bald, but make no mistake, 50% is 50%.

[thanatopsis_awry]

How (adept) you style your hair is critical.

[Smoothy]

Fair question.

 

I think Density per sq cm can be over emphasized. It is also dependent on a person's natural thickness of hair shafts--some are thicker than others and can have good appearence with less grafts sq cm.

50 vs 80 you would not notice that much difference in the middle/frontal core but little difference in hairline and transition zones-- BUT in my opinion, if you want a 100% natural undetected look, then your hairline and transition zones shouldnt have as much grafts per sq and should have a "blending transition zone"going into the frontal core. More of a light feather look.

50 g per sq cm is good enough.

 

SMOOTHY

Dr. Shapiro

Propecia/Rogain xtra

MSM/Saw Pallmetto/Zinc

Nioxin Shampoo line

Zrii 3oz daily

[Merryweather]

I'd like to have more testimonials on that subject. Indeed, a high graft density appears to be a key element in the 'natural' aspect of the transplant, independently of one's personal factors.

 

I've noticed that among the surgeons recommended on this forum, some claim densities as high as 90gp2cm, whereas others advertise for half that amount. As they all seem otherwise equally competent, it makes the choice very easy.

 

I've also read somewhere that trying to achieve too much density in one session was unadvisable , due to blood flow imperatives. Any 2ps on that ?

[Stimpson]

It depends on your goals. IMO if you are seeking natural density you do not understand the nature of the procedure and you are going to be sorry. You HAVE to think of the future.

 

If you seek 90/cm2 density and you can find a doctor unethical enough to do this for you, it is going to make your life a living nightmare a few years later when you are this freaky looking person with this thick narrow band of hair two inches above your eyebrows and slick bald behind it because you ran out of donor hair. I saw somebody like this once. It drew my eye 50 yards away.

 

Most of you super high density people are heading for disaster. Go for something that looks good, and will CONTINUE to look good as you age. The key is to keep it natural. If you super dense pack the hairline you are not going to be able to keep a natural look. You WILL be sorry.

 

Keep your expectations realistic.

 

Stimpson

[Merryweather]

I'm always surprised when people post such peremptory general opinions on forums, based solely on their own personal case. That's the definition of arrogance.

 

Stimpson, some people's baldnesses do not evolve or very little. In that case, the risk u refer gets close to zero.

[Stimpson]

I'm always surprised when people post such peremptory general opinions on forums, based solely on their own personal case. That's the definition of arrogance.

 

Stimpson, some people's baldnesses do not evolve or very little. In that case, the risk u refer gets close to zero.

 

If you were only interested in opinions pertaining to the specific situation of very limited lifetime hairloss you should have specified that.

 

Oh wait...

 

Since the world revolves around YOU I guess we are all just supposed to KNOW that the discussion is limited to YOUR situation, and we should naturally adjust the scope of all converstation accordingly... and you call ME arrogant!?!

 

The overwhelming majority of us on this board will NOT suffer just a small amount of hairloss in our lifetimes. For MOST of us, we HAVE to plan for the future. It's quite simple math. Over the span of a persons LIFETIME, they will have so much area that will become bald. The amount of donor hair is a finite quantity. It thus becomes a simple tradeoff situation. You can have adequate coverage over a larger area, or mega-dense coverage over a smaller area. The former looks natural. The latter does not. I point this out because this board has a neverending procession of young people who are panicked because their hair is STARTING to fall out. Their first instinct is to replace it FULLY. They need to fight this urge. This is because as their hair continues to fall out, they will have more area to fill in. If they keep filling it all in to natural fullness, they will run out of donor too soon, and the end result will be very bizarre and unnatural. Kind of like a lot of Armani's patients are going to look in the coming years.

 

The cautious and thoughtful approach applies to MOST people. If you have very limited lifetime baldness or NO baldness, you can throw caution to the wind. I would have thought this was obvious. However since some of the slower members among us are having trouble I have pointed it out explicitly.

 

So Merriweather I guess your question then becomes "in a situation of limited baldness where donor supply is not an issue and can be completely disregarded, is full density better than half density?"

 

Yes.

 

I would have thought that was obvious also, but that's just me...

 

For most of us who DO have to consider donor supply, caution and planning are key.

 

Thank you for your time.

 

Stimpson

[Bill - Seemiller]

Merryweather,

 

If you're going to ask for opinions, at least listen to the answers and more importantly, be respectful.

 

In fact, respect is required in this community or you will no longer be allowed to post here.

 

Now that that's over with, I'll give you my opinion on the matter...

 

Just about anyone can make 90 incisions with small refined tools per quare centimeter of a bald scalp. But getting all the hair into the recipient sites and getting them to grow is another story.

 

Assuming a hair restoration physician can get them to grow, ultra high densities are still only appropriate for a select group of patients. Even physicians recommended on the Hair Transplant Network who claim to be able to transplant the highest densities will tell you that. Frankly, transplanting 90 FU/cm2 in the hairline of a Norwood class 5 patient would be downright irresponsible. Additionally, because vascularity plays a major role in determing if a patient is a candidate for ultra high densities, certain conditions or characteristics may prevent physicians from transplanting such high densities even if they appear to be good candidates otherwise.

 

Keep in mind too that the number of hairs per follicular unit will ultimately impact the hair density that can be achieved per square centimeter. For instance, transplanting 40 2 haired FU/cm2 is the same hair density as transplanting 80 single haired FU/cm2.

 

That said, the skill and experience of the hair replacement physician is crucial in getting ultra high density hair to grow. Trimming healthy ultra refined grafts and creating tiny incisions at an appropriate angle for a snug fit without compromising the scalp's vascularity is critical.

 

Even still, most leading hair restoration physicians will tell you that risks of lower yield increases as density increases. However, it's been agreed by some of the most reputable hair transplant surgeons in the profession that more study is required to determine how much density can be achieved without compromising hair growth yield.

 

I hope this helps.

 

Bill