Efficacy and safety of a new monophasic hyaluronic acid filler in the correction of nasolabial folds: a randomized, evaluator-blinded, split-face study.
Abstract
[BACKGROUND] Hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers are frequently used for the correction of facial soft-tissue defects.
[OBJECTIVE] To compare the efficacy and safety of a novel monophasic HA filler (mono-HA), and a well-studied biphasic HA filler (bi-HA), in the treatment of moderate to severe nasolabial folds.
[METHODS] In this randomized, evaluator-blinded, split-face comparative study, subjects were randomized for injections with mono-HA or bi-HA on the left or right side of the face. Efficacy was determined by calculating the change in the Wrinkle Severity Rating Score (WSRS) relative to baseline. Local safety was assessed on the basis of subject diary entries which recorded erythema, swelling, induration, pruritus, irritation, mass, hematoma, pain, and dryness.
[RESULTS] At week 24, the mean improvement in the WSRS from baseline was 2.18 ± 0.42 for the mono-HA side and 2.16 ± 0.41 for the bi-HA side. Both fillers were well-tolerated and adverse reactions were mild and transient in most cases.
[CONCLUSIONS] Mono-HA has a non-inferior efficacy to bi-HA in the treatment of moderate to severe nasolabial folds.
[OBJECTIVE] To compare the efficacy and safety of a novel monophasic HA filler (mono-HA), and a well-studied biphasic HA filler (bi-HA), in the treatment of moderate to severe nasolabial folds.
[METHODS] In this randomized, evaluator-blinded, split-face comparative study, subjects were randomized for injections with mono-HA or bi-HA on the left or right side of the face. Efficacy was determined by calculating the change in the Wrinkle Severity Rating Score (WSRS) relative to baseline. Local safety was assessed on the basis of subject diary entries which recorded erythema, swelling, induration, pruritus, irritation, mass, hematoma, pain, and dryness.
[RESULTS] At week 24, the mean improvement in the WSRS from baseline was 2.18 ± 0.42 for the mono-HA side and 2.16 ± 0.41 for the bi-HA side. Both fillers were well-tolerated and adverse reactions were mild and transient in most cases.
[CONCLUSIONS] Mono-HA has a non-inferior efficacy to bi-HA in the treatment of moderate to severe nasolabial folds.
추출된 의학 개체 (NER)
| 유형 | 영어 표현 | 한국어 / 풀이 | UMLS CUI | 출처 | 등장 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 재료 | ha
|
히알루론산 | dict | 11 | |
| 시술 | ha filler
|
필러 주입술 | dict | 2 | |
| 재료 | hyaluronic acid
|
히알루론산 | dict | 2 | |
| 시술 | hyaluronic acid filler
|
필러 주입술 | dict | 1 | |
| 합병증 | hematoma
|
혈종 | dict | 1 |
MeSH Terms
Adult; Aged; Cosmetic Techniques; Dermatologic Agents; Female; Humans; Hyaluronic Acid; Injections; Male; Nasolabial Fold; Single-Blind Method; Skin Aging; Treatment Outcome
🔗 함께 등장하는 도메인
이 논문이 속한 카테고리와 같은 논문에서 자주 함께 다뤄지는 카테고리들
관련 논문
- Penetrating globe injury following periocular hyaluronic acid filler injection: A case report.
- Choroidal ischemia after self-injection of hyaluronic acid filler.
- Intra-articular therapies for synovial joint dysfunction: a comprehensive integrative review.
- Clinical safety of a low-modification hyaluronic acid filler (MoD 2%) for facial rejuvenation.
- Otoplasty for prominent ear: A systematic review of surgical techniques.