A comparison of the safety, efficacy, and longevity of two different hyaluronic acid fillers in filler rhinoplasty: A multicenter study

Abstract

Filler rhinoplasty is a popular procedure in Asia, and it is of great importance to understand the clinical efficacy and durability of the different filler products that serve this purpose. Here, we aimed to evaluate and compare the safety, efficacy, and longevity of two different hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers in improving the nasal profile in Asians. A multicenter comparative trial was performed for 48 weeks after a single injection of a popular monophasic monodensified, and a newly developed biphasic HA filler. Assessments including patient satisfaction and three‐dimensional (3D) imaging analysis were performed before, immediately after, 2 weeks, 12 weeks, 24 weeks, and 48 weeks after filler rhinoplasty. Twenty‐eight Korean women underwent structured rhinoplasty were divided into monophasic monodensified (n = 14) and biphasic (n = 14) groups. There were significant changes in the facial profile following filler rhinoplasty throughout the study period. Overall, an increase of 1.75 mm in nose height, increase of 3.66° in the nasofrontal angle and 2.77° in the nasolabial angle, and radix elevation of 1.24 mm was noted at week 48 which was statistically different from the baseline values (P < .05). Between the different filler types, statistical difference was only noted in radix elevation (per milliliter of filler material) immediately after filler injection. No serious adverse event occurred during treatment or follow‐up. Nonsurgical rhinoplasty with the specific HA filler products led to significant changes in the facial profile which persisted for 48 weeks. Overall, the clinical efficacy and safety were comparable between the two filler types except for radix elevation which was more prominent with C‐C immediately after filler injection. J‐V was superior to C‐C in maintaining the radix elevation long term.