Efficacy and durability of two hyaluronic acid-based fillers in the correction of nasolabial folds: results of a prospective, randomized, double-blind, actively controlled clinical pilot study.
Abstract
[BACKGROUND] This pilot study compared a monophasic hyaluronic acid dermal filler with a biphasic filler for the correction of nasolabial folds.
[METHODS] Participant- and assessor-blinded, randomized clinical trial involving participants with moderate to severe nasolabial folds. Split-face design comparing a monophase hyaluronic acid (HA) filler (mono-HA) with a biphasic HA filler (bi-HA). Injection with touch-up after 1 month. Wrinkle improvement was measured before and after injection and after 1, 2, 4, and 7 months, using the Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale and the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale as outcome criteria. An optional treatment was offered at the end of the study, with participants allowed to choose one of the products.
[OBJECTIVE] Evaluation of efficacy and safety of both products.
[RESULTS] Both products showed immediate, good results after injection and touch-up and demonstrated good durability over time. Participant preference for optional treatment at the end of the study favoured mono-HA. Both products were well tolerated, without serious adverse events.
[CONCLUSION] The effect after injection of mono-HA and bi-HA is generally comparable, although there was a trend in favor of mono-HA. Materials and funding for this study were provided by Teoxane, Geneva, Switzerland.
[METHODS] Participant- and assessor-blinded, randomized clinical trial involving participants with moderate to severe nasolabial folds. Split-face design comparing a monophase hyaluronic acid (HA) filler (mono-HA) with a biphasic HA filler (bi-HA). Injection with touch-up after 1 month. Wrinkle improvement was measured before and after injection and after 1, 2, 4, and 7 months, using the Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale and the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale as outcome criteria. An optional treatment was offered at the end of the study, with participants allowed to choose one of the products.
[OBJECTIVE] Evaluation of efficacy and safety of both products.
[RESULTS] Both products showed immediate, good results after injection and touch-up and demonstrated good durability over time. Participant preference for optional treatment at the end of the study favoured mono-HA. Both products were well tolerated, without serious adverse events.
[CONCLUSION] The effect after injection of mono-HA and bi-HA is generally comparable, although there was a trend in favor of mono-HA. Materials and funding for this study were provided by Teoxane, Geneva, Switzerland.
추출된 의학 개체 (NER)
| 유형 | 영어 표현 | 한국어 / 풀이 | UMLS CUI | 출처 | 등장 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 재료 | ha
|
히알루론산 | dict | 8 | |
| 재료 | hyaluronic acid
|
히알루론산 | dict | 3 | |
| 시술 | filler
|
필러 주입술 | dict | 2 | |
| 시술 | dermal filler
|
필러 주입술 | dict | 1 | |
| 시술 | ha filler
|
필러 주입술 | dict | 1 |
MeSH Terms
Double-Blind Method; Esthetics; Female; Humans; Hyaluronic Acid; Injections, Intradermal; Male; Middle Aged; Patient Satisfaction; Pilot Projects; Prospective Studies; Rhytidoplasty; Skin Aging; Treatment Outcome; Viscosupplements
🔗 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.
- A Fibrous-Porous Microsphere-Based Composite Filler for Synchronized Immediate and Long-Term Soft Tissue Restoration.