These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: 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.
    Author: Nast A, Reytan N, Hartmann V, Pathirana D, Bachmann F, Erdmann R, Rzany B.
    Journal: Dermatol Surg; 2011 Jun; 37(6):768-75. PubMed ID: 21605236.
    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.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]