Literature DB >> 24077007

Molecular weight analyses and enzymatic degradation profiles of the soft-tissue fillers Belotero Balance, Restylane, and Juvéderm Ultra.

Timothy Corcoran Flynn1, David H Thompson, Seok-Hee Hyun.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In this study, the authors sought to determine the molecular weight distribution of three hyaluronic acids-Belotero Balance, Restylane, and Juvéderm Ultra-and their rates of degradation following exposure to hyaluronidase. Lot consistency of Belotero Balance also was analyzed.
METHODS: Three lots of Belotero Balance were analyzed using liquid chromatography techniques. The product was found to have high-molecular-weight and low-molecular-weight species. One lot of Belotero Balance was compared to one lot each of Juvéderm Ultra and Restylane. Molecular weights of the species were analyzed. The hyaluronic acids were exposed to ovine testicular hyaluronidase at six time points-baseline and 0.5, 1, 2, 6, and 24 hours-to determine degradation rates.
RESULTS: Belotero Balance lots were remarkably consistent. Belotero Balance had the largest high-molecular-weight species, followed by Juvéderm Ultra and Restylane (p < 0.001). Low-molecular-weight differences among all three hyaluronic acids were not statistically significant. Percentages of high-molecular-weight polymer differ among the three materials, with Belotero Balance having the highest fraction of high-molecular-weight polymer. Degradation of the high-molecular-weight species over time showed different molecular weights of the high-molecular-weight fraction. Rates of degradation of the hyaluronic acids following exposure to ovine testicular hyaluronidase were similar. All hyaluronic acids were fully degraded at 24 hours.
CONCLUSIONS: Fractions of high-molecular-weight polymer differ across the hyaluronic acids tested. The low-molecular-weight differences are not statistically significant. The high-molecular-weight products have different molecular weights at the 0.5- and 2-hour time points when exposed to ovine testicular hyaluronidase and are not statistically different at 24 hours.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24077007     DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e31829e88a3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg        ISSN: 0032-1052            Impact factor:   4.730


  6 in total

1.  Effectiveness of Low Doses of Hyaluronidase to Remove Hyaluronic Acid Filler Nodules: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Murad Alam; Rosemara Hughart; Amelia Geisler; Kapila Paghdal; Amanda Maisel; Alexandra Weil; Dennis P West; Emir Veledar; Emily Poon
Journal:  JAMA Dermatol       Date:  2018-07-01       Impact factor: 10.282

2.  Periorbital Injectables: Understanding and Avoiding Complications.

Authors:  Catherine J Hwang
Journal:  J Cutan Aesthet Surg       Date:  2016 Apr-Jun

Review 3.  Evaluating hyaluronic acid dermal fillers: A critique of current characterization methods.

Authors:  Ploymanee Wongprasert; Cécile A Dreiss; Gillian Murray
Journal:  Dermatol Ther       Date:  2022-04-05       Impact factor: 3.858

Review 4.  Hyaluronic acid fillers with cohesive polydensified matrix for soft-tissue augmentation and rejuvenation: a literature review.

Authors:  Adri D Prasetyo; Welf Prager; Mark G Rubin; Ernesto A Moretti; Andreas Nikolis
Journal:  Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol       Date:  2016-09-08

5.  Facial skin revitalization with CPM®-HA20G: an effective and safe early intervention treatment.

Authors:  Dominique Hertz-Kleptow; Angelika Hanschmann; Matthias Hofmann; Tilmann Reuther; Martina Kerscher
Journal:  Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol       Date:  2019-08-13

6.  The effect of hepatopancreas homogenate of the Red king crab on HA-based filler.

Authors:  Tatyana Ponomareva; Dmitrii Sliadovskii; Maria Timchenko; Maxim Molchanov; Alexander Timchenko; Evgeny Sogorin
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2020-02-12       Impact factor: 2.984

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.