BACKGROUND: Dermal fillers have continuingly been under development to increase safety, efficacy, and longevity. Biostimulatory dermal fillers, such as calcium hydroxylapatite fillers, have already been shown to be superior in efficacy compared to nonanimal stabilized hyaluronic acid (NASHA)-based fillers. AIMS: In this randomized split-face study, we compared a novel biostimulatory polycaprolactone (PCL)-based dermal filler with a NASHA-based dermal filler, for safety, efficacy, and duration of cosmetic correction for the treatment of nasolabial folds (NLFs). PATIENTS/ METHODS:Forty subjects received aPCL-based dermal filler in one of their NLFs, and a NASHA-based dermal filler on the contralateral side. Efficacy was evaluated based on the Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale and Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale. RESULTS: After 6, 9, and 12 months post-treatment, NLFs treated with the PCL-based dermal filler showed statistically significant improvements on the Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale and greater improvements on the GAIS compared to NLFs treated with the NASHA-based dermal filler. Both products were found to be equally safe and well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that PCL-based dermal fillers offer longer-lasting performance over NASHA-based dermal fillers in NLFs treatment.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Dermal fillers have continuingly been under development to increase safety, efficacy, and longevity. Biostimulatory dermal fillers, such as calcium hydroxylapatite fillers, have already been shown to be superior in efficacy compared to nonanimal stabilized hyaluronic acid (NASHA)-based fillers. AIMS: In this randomized split-face study, we compared a novel biostimulatory polycaprolactone (PCL)-based dermal filler with a NASHA-based dermal filler, for safety, efficacy, and duration of cosmetic correction for the treatment of nasolabial folds (NLFs). PATIENTS/ METHODS: Forty subjects received a PCL-based dermal filler in one of their NLFs, and a NASHA-based dermal filler on the contralateral side. Efficacy was evaluated based on the Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale and Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale. RESULTS: After 6, 9, and 12 months post-treatment, NLFs treated with the PCL-based dermal filler showed statistically significant improvements on the Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale and greater improvements on the GAIS compared to NLFs treated with the NASHA-based dermal filler. Both products were found to be equally safe and well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that PCL-based dermal fillers offer longer-lasting performance over NASHA-based dermal fillers in NLFs treatment.
Authors: Tomasz Stefura; Artur Kacprzyk; Jakub Droś; Marta Krzysztofik; Oksana Skomarovska; Marta Fijałkowska; Mateusz Koziej Journal: Aesthetic Plast Surg Date: 2021-07-13 Impact factor: 2.708