A comparison of the efficacy, safety, and longevity of two different hyaluronic acid dermal fillers in the treatment of severe nasolabial folds: a multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled, single-blind, within-subject study
Open Access
- 1 December 2011
- journal article
- Published by Informa UK Limited in Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dermatology
- Vol. 4, 197-205
- https://doi.org/10.2147/ccid.s26055
Abstract
Background: Commercially available hyaluronic acid (HA)-based fillers have distinct physicochemical properties related to their specific manufacturing technology, including HA concentration, cross-linking percentage, and particle size. These factors may determine treatment effectiveness, safety, and longevity; however, this requires confirmation in the clinic. Methods: To compare the efficacy, safety, and longevity of two distinct HA-based dermal fillers in the correction of severe nasolabial folds (NLFs), a 24 mg/mL smooth gel (Juvederm ULTRA PLUS™ [JUP]) and a 20 mg/mL particulate gel (Perlane® [PER]) were injected in a total of 80 normal, healthy subjects using a split face design and were followed for 12 months in this prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter study. Results: Both fillers achieved a clinically relevant NLF correction (one point or more improvement, based on a validated NLF severity scale). However, JUP displayed greater longevity, with this correction maintained in a significantly larger percentage of NLFs after 6 months (physician's evaluation) or 9 months (subject's evaluation) and thereafter for the remainder of the study (70% vs 45%; P = 0.0002 and 62.5% vs 46.3%; P = 0.01 at month 12, based on physician and subject assessments, respectively). At month 12, 71.4% of the subjects nominated a preference for the NLF injected with JUP (P < 0.0001). Both treatments were well tolerated. Conclusion: These results suggest that different physicochemical properties of HA-based fillers, associated with distinct manufacturing technologies, may influence treatment longevity in the correction of volume deficits. This may relate to a differential resistance to hyaluronidase and/or free radical degradation as previously documented in vitro.Keywords
This publication has 12 references indexed in Scilit:
- Hyaluronic Acid Fillers: A Comprehensive ReviewFacial Plastic Surgery, 2009
- Comparative Physical Properties of Hyaluronic Acid Dermal FillersDermatologic Surgery, 2009
- A study examining the safety and efficacy of a fractional laser in the treatment of photodamage on the handsJournal of Cosmetic and Laser Therapy, 2009
- Surgical Anatomy of the Midcheek: Facial Layers, Spaces, and the Midcheek SegmentsClinics in Plastic Surgery, 2008
- Volumizing effect of a new hyaluronic acid sub‐dermal facial filler: A retrospective analysis based on 102 casesJournal of Cosmetic and Laser Therapy, 2008
- The science of hyaluronic acid dermal fillersJournal of Cosmetic and Laser Therapy, 2008
- Full Scope of Effect of Facial Lipoatrophy: A Framework of Disease UnderstandingDermatologic Surgery, 2006
- The anatomy of the aging face: Volume loss and changes in 3-dimensional topographyAesthetic Surgery Journal, 2006
- Fat distribution: a morphologic study of the aging face.2000
- Physiological function of connective tissue polysaccharides.Physiological Reviews, 1978