The main goal of this research was to investigate the meanings of facial mutilations in social interaction from persons living with this problem. The research was based on Psychosocial approaches, Anthropology and Cultural Psychology, which try to identify the body as a very important element at the personal and identity constitution. To Culture the body is an installment where/from the meanings are created. Body-person crossed by agencies and subjects positions to social discourse. On this theoretical context ? where the head and the face are central at the personal identity construction ? we locate the object of our investigation: the living with a facial mutilation. The research was conducted on two places: the Centro de Reabilitação Buco?Maxilo?Facial, at Hospital de Câncer de Pernambuco (HCP), and a private officer of facial rehabilitation. We used participant observation, semi-driven interviews and biographic interviews, in a total of sixteen persons. The thematic analyses and double hermeneutic were used to analyze the information collected by the research, and from the interviews transcriptions, we tried to understand the histories narrated. And displayed as our results, through persons discourses synthesis, but trying to show the researcher interpretations parts. This is a pre-analysis of our data. We observed that the use of aids, glasses and facial prosthesis seem to improve the personal affirmation in front of the impossibility to live the way one ?was before?, because now there is a ?hole in the face?. The mutilation is understood as a monstrosity stigma, related to the literature characters Frankenstein, the Notre Dame Hunchback and, specially, the Phantom of the Opera. In search of social accommodation, the use of those accessories would be a mask, because would show the condition. It is related by some of our subjects that theseaccessories are capable of facilitate the social interaction, specially with the loved ones, family and friends, and the acceptance by those is named as fundamental to crossing the difficult times related to the mutilation. The fact is, considering society, people fell extremely observed, analyzed, and receiving a negative evaluation because of the face modifications. Still, we were able to perceive situations were the individual had thepower to demonstrate one difference and autonomy, even where the social estigmating rules were known. Also at the visited places created to give support to those living with mutilations, we didn?t see groups or sharing experiences places. The discourses suggest that the individual treatment, based on prosthesis, not always contributes to the search to social living, and the abatement is the most common answer to this situations called by us as ?monstrosity stigma?: to fell as strange, different and even scary. Enduring stigma even with the use of aids, glasses and facial prosthesis. The data indicates a way to dealwith this stigma, socially shared and individually incorporated, not by the use of ?masks? but by showing the humanity of those mutilated