Polygraph questions that do not deal with the specifics, including where/when the crime took place, who the victim was and the names of other people involved, would not be sufficiently detailed to violate a defendant’s right not to self-incriminate. The burden of proof would still be on the prosecutor to incriminate the defendant and prove beyond reasonable doubt that they committed the crime in question. 
The polygraph would not provide a lead or link to evidence used in the conviction. However, it would be useful to background information and used to show the defendant’s character in front of a jury.
Also, the term "self-incrimination" does not really apply here. The safeguards designed to protect against self-incrimination were supposed to prevent the government from forcing defendants to testify against themselves. They were not designed to prevent law enforcement officers from extracting information from them.
Consider a case where someone gets arrested for drink driving. They go to the police station, where the police take their blood. Blood tests reveal that the driver was driving intoxicated. Would this person be able to argue that their right to self-incrimination was infringed because law enforcement used evidence taken from the defendant in their case? No.
Lie detector tests function in the same way. They do not violate a defendant's right to not self-incriminate because the state will not get to the defendant to testify. It is simply a mechanism to extract evidence from the suspect, in much the same way as a blood test does.