Comparative clinical study for the efficacy and safety of two different hyaluronic acid‐based fillers with Tri‐Hyal versus Vycross technology: A long‐term prospective randomized clinical trial

Background Hyaluronic acid‐based fillers have an immediate volumizing effect for the treatment of dermal contour deformities and to smooth dermal depressions formed by the loss of volume. A previous study on 2016–2018 has shown the efficacy and safety of the HA‐based filler ART FILLER® Volume on the...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of cosmetic dermatology 2023-02, Vol.22 (2), p.473-485
Main Authors: Braccini, Frederic, Fanian, Ferial, Garcia, Philippe, Delmar, Henry, Loreto, Federico, Benadiba, Laurent, Nadra, Karim, Kestemont, Philippe
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
anti‐aging
Cosmetic Techniques - adverse effects
Dermal Fillers - adverse effects
Face
facial injections
Fibroblasts
fillers
Humans
Hyaluronic Acid
Injectable
Investigations
Original
Prospective Studies
Single-Blind Method
Skin
Skin Aging
skin rejuvenation
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background Hyaluronic acid‐based fillers have an immediate volumizing effect for the treatment of dermal contour deformities and to smooth dermal depressions formed by the loss of volume. A previous study on 2016–2018 has shown the efficacy and safety of the HA‐based filler ART FILLER® Volume on the midface only, but not in a comparative manner. Methods In this context, an 18 months prospective randomized single‐blind study of the non‐inferiority of ART FILLER® Volume versus the reference product Juvéderm Voluma® was performed on the midface, temple, and jawline, and non‐comparative study on the chin. The efficacy and the longevity were evaluated for the selected face areas via dedicated clinical scoring systems after a single filler injection without any re‐touch or re‐injection. The short‐ and long‐term adverse effects were also recorded. Results The observations confirmed the non‐inferiority of ART FILLER® Volume versus the reference product on the different injected areas. For both fillers, the beneficial effects on volumes restoration were maintained 18 months post‐injection; however, these effects were diminished among the time. Furthermore, injections of Art Filler® Volume were well tolerated by the subjects and showed less acute side effects compared with the reference product that may be explained by a lower induction of inflammation.
ISSN:1473-2130
1473-2165
DOI:10.1111/jocd.15200